NationStates Jolt Archive

So after constantly hearing about Mitt Romney's Mormonism being expounded upon again and again...and being rather ignorant of it...I thought I'd turn to NationStates Mormons to inquire about the sect.

From what I think I know, it's a sect that focuses mainly on America, right? Presenting America as some place where Jesus walked...oh, and you guys can't drink coffee. Or alcohol.

Anyway, since I obviously don't know what the hell I'm talking about, please enlighten me, and anyone else ignorant about Mormonism.

I'll relate what little I know from one of my old high-school buddies. It's not very much. They're required to do missionary work at some point. Yes, the religion originated in the United States. The whole polygamy thing is blown way out of proportion.

...seems I know much less than I originally thought, might I suggest wikipedia?

So after constantly hearing about Mitt Romney's Mormonism being expounded upon again and again...and being rather ignorant of it...I thought I'd turn to NationStates Mormons to inquire about the sect.

From what I think I know, it's a sect that focuses mainly on America, right? Presenting America as some place where Jesus walked...oh, and you guys can't drink coffee. Or alcohol.

Anyway, since I obviously don't know what the hell I'm talking about, please enlighten me, and anyone else ignorant about Mormonism.

My pleasure.

Mormonism is a Christian sect that is based on not ONLY the Bible but also on the Book of Mormon, among others.

The Book of Mormon is translated from a record of people who lived in the Americas, who were also personally visited by Jesus Christ.

And yeah, we stay away from Coffee, Tea, Alcoholic drinks and tobacco. :)

I'll relate what little I know from one of my old high-school buddies. It's not very much. They're required to do missionary work at some point. Yes, the religion originated in the United States. The whole polygamy thing is blown way out of proportion.

...seems I know much less than I originally thought, might I suggest wikipedia?

The missionary part isn't required, but highly encouraged. I converted in my adulthood so unless I do it after I retire, I'll never be a missionary.

...although many retired couples do go on missions, and the thought does appeal to me.

Go ahead and read the book of Mormon, it's a cracking read. All about metal plates, and native American's being the lost tribe, and Jesus walking the shores of America! Fantastic.

I would ask any Mormons out there though, why is it that when ever I meet a Mormon missionary, they are extreamly good looking, both make and female?

It seems like some sorta ploy to me.

I'll relate what little I know from one of my old high-school buddies. It's not very much. They're required to do missionary work at some point. Yes, the religion originated in the United States. The whole polygamy thing is blown way out of proportion.

...seems I know much less than I originally thought, might I suggest wikipedia?}
I always like to hear personal stories about subjects such as this first...they usually foster discussion and are quite interesting.

My pleasure.

Mormonism is a Christian sect that is based on not ONLY the Bible but also on the Book of Mormon, among others.

The Book of Mormon is translated from a record of people who lived in the Americas, who were also personally visited by Jesus Christ.

And yeah, we stay away from Coffee, Tea, Alcoholic drinks and tobacco. :)

Interesting...details please. About how exactly you differ from other sects of Christianity and so on.

Go ahead and read the book of Mormon, it's a cracking read. All about metal plates, and native American's being the lost tribe, and Jesus walking the shores of America! Fantastic.

I would ask any Mormons out there though, why is it that when ever I meet a Mormon missionary, they are extreamly good looking, both make and female?

It seems like some sorta ploy to me.

It's because the majority of missionaries go after they graduate high school, and put off college until they return. When on a mission they must be well groomed and dress in business attire.

And who doesn't look good in a suit? :)

But nah it's not a ploy, just young well dressed, well groomed, self confident people.

The Book of Mormon is translated from a record of people who lived in the Americas, who were also personally visited by Jesus Christ.

Or just made up by Joseph Smith.

I don't know much at all about the actual sect.

But two awesome NRL (rugby league) players are Mormons.

They're the shit.

The missionary part isn't required, but highly encouraged. I converted in my adulthood so unless I do it after I retire, I'll never be a missionary.

...although many retired couples do go on missions, and the thought does appeal to me.

He presented it like it was required, but then again we were in high school. The idea of what's "required" was different then.

Interesting...details please. About how exactly you differ from other sects of Christianity and so on.

They believe that Satan and Jesus are brothers, and that when you die if you are good you can have your own planet and be a god of it, and they wear holy underwear and also, they baptize dead people........

Go ahead and read the book of Mormon, it's a cracking read. All about metal plates, and native American's being the lost tribe, and Jesus walking the shores of America! Fantastic.

I would ask any Mormons out there though, why is it that when ever I meet a Mormon missionary, they are extreamly good looking, both make and female?

It seems like some sorta ploy to me.

you should drive through utah some day. there is an abundance of perfect families. wholesome looking moms and dads with 4-6 perfect children all well behaved.

I highly suggest the South Park episode "All About Mormons" (season seven episode 12). You can probably download it via bit torrent. Mainly focuses on the back story of it though.

It's all about a guy who made up a religion so he could have more than one wife. Then when Utah wanted statehood the feds said no way, so a compromise was struck. Mormons dropped polygamy and Utah got in.

I don't know much at all about the actual sect.

But two awesome NRL (rugby league) players are Mormons.

They're the shit.

lol. Who?

All the Mormons and I mean all the Mormons I know are all very nice people.

I think the church is run in sort of a strange fassion, not in a bad way but strange nevertheless.

I've talked to my good friend who is Mormon about it, and so far I've gathered:

The clergy for each church are either selected or elected, and they are simply members of the church who will act as the pastor (Or whatever they're called) for 9 monthes I think?

I don't know if it's required or requested, but 10% of your income goes to the church, which makes sense to me since they seem to like expanding a lot.

At 18 or 19, you're sent away to do missionary work for two years. And then chances are, you'll go to BYU. :p

My friend also has this little booklet thing he keeps in his wallet with instructions on how to be a good Mormon (This is where it gets kind of wierd to me). It includes things like, "Don't swear, don't date until your 16, don't watch obscene movies." But then it has, "Do not engage in homosexual activities."

My only beef with the church itself is the homophobia. Apparently if you're found gay, you can get ex-comunicated from the church, which I think is total bullshit.

Then again, it seems gay-bashing is "in" with many religions these days, and the Mormon Church is extremley recent.

I wouldn't focus on the bad though. As a rule of thumb, Mormons are very nice people who simply follow a sect of Christianity that's different from the rest.

Mitt Romney however... I for one believe that the man is the Anti-Christ. (Not really but you know what I mean.)

lol. Who?

Israel Folau from the Storm.
And Krisnan Inu from the Eels.

Both are really, really good. And so damn young too.

i like the precolumbian chariot battles in new york, myself

They believe that Satan and Jesus are brothers, and that when you die if you are good you can have your own planet and be a god of it, and they wear holy underwear and also, they baptize dead people........
Now that's really interesting...your own planet?

you should drive through utah some day. there is an abundance of perfect families. wholesome looking moms and dads with 4-6 perfect children all well behaved.


That sounds absolutely terrifying.

Interesting...details please. About how exactly you differ from other sects of Christianity and so on.

Well the Book of Mormon as a record begins in about the year 600 B.C. in Jerusalem shortly before the Babylonian invasion. The people who kept those records (and recorded their history) were commended by the Lord to get out of dodge before the invasion and preserve their records. They traveled overland for some years before reaching the sea, at which point they were commanded to build a ship to continue. Eventually they landed in the Americas and set up a colony.

Shortly after the time Jesus Christ did His thing in Jerusalem and ascended to Heaven, He returned to speak to this detatched civilization. His words and teachings are recorded in the Book of Mormon. (I'll look up th everse from the New testament where He told the people He was going to do this.)

The record ends about A.D. 450 when the last of the tribe were defeated in battle and the records were hidden in what would later be upstate New York.

So reading the Book of Mormon is like reading the Bible. Lots of history, lots of prophecy and lots of teaching.

As for how we differ from other sects... I guess doctrinally the main difference is that while Catholicism and most Protestant sects teach the dogma of the Trinity, we acknowledge that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost (The Godhead) are three separate beings who are one in purpose and action. This seems to be the primary reason other Christians often refer to us as a cult.

That sounds absolutely terrifying.

It's the waving that really gets you.

Well the Book of Mormon as a record begins in about the year 600 B.C. in Jerusalem shortly before the Babylonian invasion. The people who kept those records (and recorded their history) were commended by the Lord to get out of dodge before the invasion and preserve their records. They traveled overland for some years before reaching the sea, at which point they were commanded to build a ship to continue. Eventually they landed in the Americas and set up a colony.

Shortly after the time Jesus Christ did His thing in Jerusalem and ascended to Heaven, He returned to speak to this detatched civilization. His words and teachings are recorded in the Book of Mormon. (I'll look up th everse from the New testament where He told the people He was going to do this.)

The record ends about A.D. 450 when the last of the tribe were defeated in battle and the records were hidden in what would later be upstate New York.

So reading the Book of Mormon is like reading the Bible. Lots of history, lots of prophecy and lots of teaching.

As for how we differ from other sects... I guess doctrinally the main difference is that while Catholicism and most Protestant sects teach the dogma of the Trinity, we acknowledge that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost (The Godhead) are three separate beings who are one in purpose and action. This seems to be the primary reason other Christians often refer to us as a cult.
Fascinating.

I'm curious...how much evidence is there in support of these accounts having existed? How were they discovered and so on, I suppose I mean.

Or just made up by Joseph Smith.

Yes because I'm sooo certain a man with no more than a second grader's education could write it.

Fascinating.

I'm curious...how much evidence is there in support of these accounts having existed? How were they discovered and so on, I suppose I mean.

You'll never be able to have "concrete" evidence of the Golden Plates, as they are not in posession of any earthly entity at the time. The angel took them back after the translation was complete.

That sounds absolutely terrifying.

it does cause a reaction. if there are too many of them in one place, its creepy. otherwise it can be a bit intimidating to see such perfect families when your own seems so flawed. you have to keep reminding yourself that appearances can be deceiving.

All I know about them is that back in Germany, they would stand in the pedestrian zones on Saturdays, ludicrously dressed in strange black suits and frighten old people.

They believe that Satan and Jesus are brothers, and that when you die if you are good you can have your own planet and be a god of it, and they wear holy underwear and also, they baptize dead people........

Wow. I expected some derision on here but not from you. (Unless you're just being lightehearted.)

I highly suggest the South Park episode "All About Mormons" (season seven episode 12). You can probably download it via bit torrent. Mainly focuses on the back story of it though.

Yeah.. South Park, what an excellent source of info. :rolleyes:

It's all about a guy who made up a religion so he could have more than one wife. Then when Utah wanted statehood the feds said no way, so a compromise was struck. Mormons dropped polygamy and Utah got in.

Well the second part of that is sorta true.


The clergy for each church are either selected or elected, and they are simply members of the church who will act as the pastor (Or whatever they're called) for 9 monthes I think?


Positions in the Church are filled by "calling" individual members to fill them. The exact amount of time varies.


I don't know if it's required or requested, but 10% of your income goes to the church, which makes sense to me since they seem to like expanding a lot.


10% Tithe. Same as in Catholicism. Nobody forces you to pay it but it is one of the requirements to be able to go to the Temple.


At 18 or 19, you're sent away to do missionary work for two years. And then chances are, you'll go to BYU. :p


Voluntarily. :)


My friend also has this little booklet thing he keeps in his wallet with instructions on how to be a good Mormon (This is where it gets kind of wierd to me). It includes things like, "Don't swear, don't date until your 16, don't watch obscene movies." But then it has, "Do not engage in homosexual activities."

My only beef with the church itself is the homophobia. Apparently if you're found gay, you can get ex-comunicated from the church, which I think is total bullshit.

Then again, it seems gay-bashing is "in" with many religions these days, and the Mormon Church is extremley recent.


Actually, the vast majority of Christian sects handle this the same way, except that homosexuals are welcome to attend Mormon church meetings. You can't become a member, but nobody's gonna chase you out.

I don't think that's the case with many others, but I don't have much personal experience to go on.

Yes because I'm sooo certain a man with no more than a second grader's education could write it.

Seems far more likely than it being the product of some imaginary culture that there is absolutely no evidence to support the existence of.

They believe that Satan and Jesus are brothers, and that when you die if you are good you can have your own planet and be a god of it, and they wear holy underwear and also, they baptize dead people........

... and they also believe that Native Americans are descendants of people from the Middle East, which is of course genetically false... oh, and Joseph Smith apparently got golden tablets from an angel called "Moroni" (he was just missing a c) with the words of his deity on them, but then he so conveniently had to give them back, because evidence to one's preposterous claims are so pesky to have around...

Now that's really interesting...your own planet?




That sounds absolutely terrifying.

Ok... Somebody jumped a bit over board and didn't clarify what they were talking about.

First of all, that Jesus and Satan were brothers is only, well, part true. I'd have to explain the concept of "Pre-Earth Life" in order for that to make sense. There is nothing special about the "underwear" itself, as there is nothing mystical of special articles of clothing worn by other religions- it is a symbolic thing. The God part, that needs some more explaining too- Basically I'd have to go from start to finish, but that can take a while.

And no, we are far from perfect- and our children are NOT well behaved- sometime they are, sometimes they're not- just as anybody has well behaved and roudy children. They're kids.

Actually, the vast majority of Christian sects handle this the same way, except that homosexuals are welcome to attend Mormon church meetings. You can't become a member, but nobody's gonna chase you out.

I don't think that's the case with many others, but I don't have much personal experience to go on.

I'm a Catholic. I've got homosexual friends who at their church (Catholic too), regularly do the offertory and other stuff. But, I guess the Catholic Church's official teaching may be a little different.

Fascinating.

I'm curious...how much evidence is there in support of these accounts having existed? How were they discovered and so on, I suppose I mean.

They were discovered in the early 1800s by Joseph Smith as a result of a vision he had.

In a nutshell:

Joseph Smith (as a young man) was confused about which church was the true church of God. So many to chosoe from with Catholics and Baptists and Presbeteryans and Methodists, etc. So he read the Bible (James 1:5) and decided to pray for the answer. He was told to join none of them. Later, he had a vision where he was shown a place near his home where he was to dig, and found the spot where these records were hidden.

Evidence, there ain't none, although they were shown to an archaeological linguist in New York City who verified their authenticity. As for where they are today? Taken back by an Angel.

Remember that the big pivotal element of Mormon belief is Faith. I think that's the reason artifact like that aren't made available. if someone believes, it must be due to faith, not the proof of man.

Seems far more likely than it being the product of some imaginary culture that there is absolutely no evidence to support the existence of.

"Evidence" is very subjective. There has been alot of evidence put forth both for and against. The same is said of every religion. It's called "Faith".

Ok... Somebody jumped a bit over board and didn't clarify what they were talking about.

First of all, that Jesus and Satan were brothers is only, well, part true. I'd have to explain the concept of "Pre-Earth Life" in order for that to make sense. There is nothing special about the "underwear" itself, as there is nothing mystical of special articles of clothing worn by other religions- it is a symbolic thing. The God part, that needs some more explaining too- Basically I'd have to go from start to finish, but that can take a while.

And no, we are far from perfect- and our children are NOT well behaved- sometime they are, sometimes they're not- just as anybody has well behaved and roudy children. They're kids.

It's not so complex. Jesus and Satan, like all of us, were created by God. That makes us siblings.

Simple.

They were discovered in the early 1800s by Joseph Smith as a result of a vision he had.

In a nutshell:

Joseph Smith (as a young man) was confused about which church was the true church of God. So many to chosoe from with Catholics and Baptists and Presbeteryans and Methodists, etc. So he read the Bible (James 1:5) and decided to pray for the answer. He was told to join none of them. Later, he had a vision where he was shown a place near his home where he was to dig, and found the spot where these records were hidden.

Evidence, there ain't none, although they were shown to an archaeological linguist in New York City who verified their authenticity. As for where they are today? Taken back by an Angel.

Remember that the big pivotal element of Mormon belief is Faith. I think that's the reason artifact like that aren't made available. if someone believes, it must be due to faith, not the proof of man.

Interesting...the articles of your faith are just taken away so no one can see them..

You know, wouldn't it make sense to show them to people, to try and prove your religion is the truth? Yes, sure, faith is good and all for a religion, but I would think that would really help with converting people.

My only beef with the church itself is the homophobia. Apparently if you're found gay, you can get ex-comunicated from the church, which I think is total bullshit.

Have you seen Latter Days (http://imdb.com/title/tt0345551/)? It has a pretty truthful depiction in it of what happens when the Mormons find out one of them is gay. It ain't pretty.

The "Inspired Version" of the Bible is basically the King James. Joseph Smith put notes in his Bible. After he died they took his bible and incorporated the notes into the text so it's basically a commentary of the King James.

The Book of Mormon, as others have explained, is the translation of some gold plates found in a hill in New York that is basically a repeat of the OT with a story line of a group of Jews that left the Mid-East and settled in the new world.

The Doctrine and Covenants is the writings of church leaders that are believed to be inspired.

The Pearl of Great Price is supposed to be the translation of some papyrus that Joseph received with some mummys he bought. It has been shown that the translation is incorrect but it is still believed to be inspired.

Most of the Temple Rites developed from the Mason Lodge. They were modified and greatly expanded by Brigham Young after the death of Joseph. Things like Baptism of the Dead, Polygamy, Marriage after death, and many of the others were unknown to Joseph. Although some Mormons claim that Joseph considered them before his death.

... and they also believe that Native Americans are descendants of people from the Middle East, which is of course genetically false... oh, and Joseph Smith apparently got golden tablets from an angel called "Moroni" (he was just missing a c) with the words of his deity on them, but then he so conveniently had to give them back, because evidence to one's preposterous claims are so pesky to have around...

Do you have a toothache or something?

Do you have a toothache or something?

Do you suffer from chronic gullibility?

Some of the ideas behind Mormonism strike me as really really far fetched. But the fact is , all of the Mormons I have ever met are very nice people with solid family values.
I may not believe the same things that Mormons do , but I'm happy to share my space with them any time ! :)

Interesting...the articles of your faith are just taken away so no one can see them..

You know, wouldn't it make sense to show them to people, to try and prove your religion is the truth? Yes, sure, faith is good and all for a religion, but I would think that would really help with converting people.

I would suggest reading the Book of Mormon, and then try living by it's precepts, or at least follow the challenge at the end- to honestly pray about it, and sincerely inquire of the Lord as to the truthfulness of the Book. He'll tell you if it's real or BS.

(...) a record of people who lived in the Americas, who were also personally visited by Jesus Christ

And yeah, we stay away from Coffee, Tea, Alcoholic drinks and tobacco.

Looks like you should stay away from drugs too...

Yeah.. South Park, what an excellent source of info. :rolleyes:

Have you even seen the episode in question? Because it is actually historically accurate. Seems a tad hypocritical if you haven't.

EDIT
Historically accurate re: Mormonism, not actual history.

Do you have a toothache or something?

Fuck I REALLY do it's so damn sore.

Can you explain why Mormons make great NRL players? I mean, there's probably no connection.. But two of the best young players in the league, hmm.

Interesting...the articles of your faith are just taken away so no one can see them..

You know, wouldn't it make sense to show them to people, to try and prove your religion is the truth? Yes, sure, faith is good and all for a religion, but I would think that would really help with converting people.

Funny thing, he was instructed not to show them to anyone. Some people claim to of touched them, through a cloth or sheet and felt their weight.

There's no actual proof, no evidence of any of these settlements.

Have you even seen the episode in question? Because it is actually historically accurate. Seems a tad hypocritical if you haven't.

I've heard about that. It sound quite humorous, despite it being contrary to my beliefs. The facts... well, sounds like they got some right. Interperetation... it's a tv show- of course they take artistic lisence.

I would suggest reading the Book of Mormon, and then try living by it's precepts, or at least follow the challenge at the end- to honestly pray about it, and sincerely inquire of the Lord as to the truthfulness of the Book. He'll tell you if it's real or BS.

"I suggest buying it hook, line and sinker, and then after you've become part of the choir to preach to it!"

Fuck I REALLY do it's so damn sore.

Can you explain why Mormons make great NRL players? I mean, there's probably no connection.. But two of the best young players in the league, hmm.

I can't think of any special connection... anyone else?

Have you even seen the episode in question? Because it is actually historically accurate. Seems a tad hypocritical if you haven't.

Did they have a text like they had in the scientology episode that said "This is what they actually believe" because it was so ludicrous there was a risk people would think it a misrepresentation?

10% Tithe. Same as in Catholicism. Nobody forces you to pay it but it is one of the requirements to be able to go to the Temple.

So it's required. :rolleyes:



Actually, the vast majority of Christian sects handle this the same way, except that homosexuals are welcome to attend Mormon church meetings. You can't become a member, but nobody's gonna chase you out.

I don't think that's the case with many others, but I don't have much personal experience to go on.

Well at my church, where gays are welcome and women are treated as equals, we like to preach tollerance and acceptance of others, which is what Christianity is sort of based upon.

Why can't gays become members? What the hell did they ever do to the Mormons? What the hell did they ever do to anyone?

"I suggest buying it hook, line and sinker, and then after you've become part of the choir to preach to it!"

If you must see it that way...:)

I would suggest reading the Book of Mormon, and then try living by it's precepts, or at least follow the challenge at the end- to honestly pray about it, and sincerely inquire of the Lord as to the truthfulness of the Book. He'll tell you if it's real or BS.
Sorry, but that doesn't work for me. I'm an atheist...my intentions here were simply to learn about Mormon mythology.

Probably should have said that in the original post. Oh well...
Funny thing, he was instructed not to show them to anyone. Some people claim to of touched them, through a cloth or sheet and felt their weight.

There's no actual proof, no evidence of any of these settlements.
I'm not surprised. There never really is. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls are just older versions of certain parts of the Bible...sure they're interesting, but they're hardly any more relevant to reality than the rest of the Bible.

Why can't gays become members? What the hell did they ever do to the Mormons? What the hell did they ever do to anyone?

Haven't you heard? Faggots are yucky. There's your answer.

I've only experienced "Mormonhood" twice.

The first time I was living in Las Vegas, and was a process engineer in a plant that ran 24/7. If they had problems, or scheduled an experiment, I was supposed to be there, whatever the time was. I had just finished an overnight run there, and went to bed at about 8:00 am.

Two Mormons on mission started ringing my doorbell at aout 12:00 and wouldn't stop, so I got my robe on, and answered the door. I got some talk about them being on mission, and would I take a few minuted to talk to them about my "future."

I told them that they had just woken me up, and I'm going back to sleep, so no, my future isn't up for discussion.

So one of them said "What are you doing sleeping at noon?" I should have said "Whatever I want," but I just closed the door on 'em.

The sceond time was to catch a flight out of SLC early am, and was reading a book ('cause there wasn't an open bar there) when I noticed a family waiting at the gate to welcome home a member from mission. All (and I do mean all, I looked) of the women were wearing peasent skirts that came to about 1 inch of the ground. A pity to, because I bet some of the younger women were *smoking* hot. It was the most organized, well behaved reunion I had ever seen.

"I suggest buying it hook, line and sinker, and then after you've become part of the choir to preach to it!"

If you must see it that way...:D

"Evidence" is very subjective. There has been alot of evidence put forth both for and against. The same is said of every religion. It's called "Faith".

What evidence is there for it all being true?

Sounds about on the same level of evidence as the Scientology books of L Ron Hubbard.

Well the Book of Mormon as a record begins in about the year 600 B.C. in Jerusalem shortly before the Babylonian invasion. The people who kept those records (and recorded their history) were commended by the Lord to get out of dodge before the invasion and preserve their records. They traveled overland for some years before reaching the sea, at which point they were commanded to build a ship to continue. Eventually they landed in the Americas and set up a colony.

Shortly after the time Jesus Christ did His thing in Jerusalem and ascended to Heaven, He returned to speak to this detatched civilization. His words and teachings are recorded in the Book of Mormon. (I'll look up th everse from the New testament where He told the people He was going to do this.)

The record ends about A.D. 450 when the last of the tribe were defeated in battle and the records were hidden in what would later be upstate New York.

So reading the Book of Mormon is like reading the Bible. Lots of history, lots of prophecy and lots of teaching.

As for how we differ from other sects... I guess doctrinally the main difference is that while Catholicism and most Protestant sects teach the dogma of the Trinity, we acknowledge that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost (The Godhead) are three separate beings who are one in purpose and action. This seems to be the primary reason other Christians often refer to us as a cult.

Ok... so why is there no archaelogical evidence for all of this?

BTW the Scientologists have a far better fiction story, with aliens and hydrogen bombs and all sorts of science fiction stuff. Google "Xenu"

Interesting...the articles of your faith are just taken away so no one can see them..

You know, wouldn't it make sense to show them to people, to try and prove your religion is the truth? Yes, sure, faith is good and all for a religion, but I would think that would really help with converting people.

No, I don't think it would. Even if the plates could be produced, would that really prove anything anyway? So I have a set of plates with ancient writing on them. Would that make you want to convert? I suspect not.

Besides which, if your belief is based on proof given to you by a man, then you can be converted out by somebody else's conflicting "proof".

The core of our belief is that the only true conversion must come from God. Missionaries don't convert you, the Spirit does. That makes dubious "evidence" irrelevant.

Besides which, if your belief is based on proof given to you by a man, then you can be converted out by somebody else's conflicting "proof".

Damn those evidence and proof! They can be used to corroborate anything even remotely true. How vexing.

So it's required. :rolleyes:




Well at my church, where gays are welcome and women are treated as equals, we like to preach tollerance and acceptance of others, which is what Christianity is sort of based upon.

Why can't gays become members? What the hell did they ever do to the Mormons? What the hell did they ever do to anyone?

That's a misstatment. They can be members, however, engaging in homosexual activity will result in excommunication. We don't excommunicate though they way Catholics do- you're not condemned to hell, we hope you repent and come back to the fold.

What evidence is there for it all being true?

Sounds about on the same level of evidence as the Scientology books of L Ron Hubbard.

The only difference being that mormonism and scientology is that mormonism is old enough now to not be immediately dismissed as a kooky cult.

Have you even seen the episode in question? Because it is actually historically accurate. Seems a tad hypocritical if you haven't.

EDIT
Historically accurate re: Mormonism, not actual history.

I HAVE seen it.

But if your intention is to use South Park as a historical reference, I don't know what to tell you.

No, I don't think it would. Even if the plates could be produced, would that really prove anything anyway? So I have a set of plates with ancient writing on them. Would that make you want to convert? I suspect not.

Besides which, if your belief is based on proof given to you by a man, then you can be converted out by somebody else's conflicting "proof".

The core of our belief is that the only true conversion must come from God. Missionaries don't convert you, the Spirit does. That makes dubious "evidence" irrelevant.

So if I politely chase missionaries away from my doorstep at 8am on a Saturday morning, was that the work of the Spirit? Me deciding against a life of magical underwear and golden plates? If the Spirit does the work, why do you have missionaries?

No, I don't think it would. Even if the plates could be produced, would that really prove anything anyway? So I have a set of plates with ancient writing on them. Would that make you want to convert? I suspect not.

Besides which, if your belief is based on proof given to you by a man, then you can be converted out by somebody else's conflicting "proof".

The core of our belief is that the only true conversion must come from God. Missionaries don't convert you, the Spirit does. That makes dubious "evidence" irrelevant.

Oh, okay. Fair enough.

Ok... so why is there no archaelogical evidence for all of this?

BTW the Scientologists have a far better fiction story, with aliens and hydrogen bombs and all sorts of science fiction stuff. Google "Xenu"

Well if the first part is a serious question, I can field it. The second part of your statement makes me doubt it.

I HAVE seen it.

But if your intention is to use South Park as a historical reference, I don't know what to tell you.

I've seen the episode. It's actually pretty accurate.

"So did you kick his (The Mormon's) ass?"

"No... I'm uh... going over to his house for dinner."

But if your intention is to use South Park as a historical reference, I don't know what to tell you.

So, that means you can't dispute it?

Ok... so why is there no archaelogical evidence for all of this?Because Joseph Smith jr made that all up. That's why.

Because Joseph Smith jr made that all up. That's why.

*gasp* No! Get outta town!

Ahem.

Mormons are not Christians.

The definition of a Christian is someone who adheres only to the Holy Bible, believes that Jesus Christ is True Man and True God and was the same man prophesied in the Old Testament as the coming Messiah, and that he died on the cross to save your sins.

Mormons, although they believe that Jesus was their savior, they do not believe that Jesus was True God and True Man. They believe that He got His divinity when He was baptized, and He lost it on the cross before He died. They say they are Christians, and if they want to believe that, that's fine, but they're not.

I've heard about that. It sound quite humorous, despite it being contrary to my beliefs. The facts... well, sounds like they got some right. Interperetation... it's a tv show- of course they take artistic lisence.

Wait... Why is it contrary to your beliefs?

I HAVE seen it.

But if your intention is to use South Park as a historical reference, I don't know what to tell you.

I suggested somebody watch it because it provides an entertaining and historically accurate account of the creation of the religion and you seemed to take exception to that for no discernble reason.

Did they have a text like they had in the scientology episode that said "This is what they actually believe" because it was so ludicrous there was a risk people would think it a misrepresentation?

lol, no, but they had a character being all "wtf"? I suggest you watch it as it is a really great episode.

The core of our belief is that the only true conversion must come from God. Missionaries don't convert you, the Spirit does. That makes dubious "evidence" irrelevant.

Then why are the missionaries needed in the first place?

Well if the first part is a serious question, I can field it. The second part of your statement makes me doubt it.

I'm serious. The Scientologists really DO have a story about aliens and hydrogen bombs.

Ok, just answer the first question then.

lol, no, but they had a character being all "wtf"? I suggest you watch it as it is a really great episode.

Do you know the name of the episode, or at least which season it's part of?

So it's required. :rolleyes:

It seems to make you happy to say that, so be my guest.



Well at my church, where gays are welcome and women are treated as equals, we like to preach tollerance and acceptance of others, which is what Christianity is sort of based upon.

Why can't gays become members? What the hell did they ever do to the Mormons? What the hell did they ever do to anyone?

Why is it that people insist on taking this stuff personally?

You want to know why homosexuality isn't compatible with conservative Christianity? Read the Bible and pray for the answers. I can theorize for ya, but really I can't claim to know for sure.

Either way it's not like we sit around at meetings thinking of new and better ways to exclude people, nor do we trash talk anybody, and I've never heard any Mormon refer to homosexuals in derisive or abusive language.

But that won't make a difference to you, will it?

Either way it's not like we sit around at meetings thinking of new and better ways to exclude people

Also seems like you don't sit around at meetings thinking of new and better ways to be tolerant and accepting of people.

Why is it that people insist on taking this stuff personally?

Yeah, why would those faggots take persecution, discrimination and oppression and claims to their inferiority and filthiness personally? They're so silly.

I've never heard any Mormon refer to homosexuals in derisive or abusive language.

You must have been doing some intense "lalala, I can't hear you!" then.

I'm serious. The Scientologists really DO have a story about aliens and hydrogen bombs.

Ok, just answer the first question then.

There's a really good book written from an archaeological field called "Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon." It's a little technical but I highly recommend it.

It's not known exactly where the colonists landed but this book has some very good theories using local archaeology in the Central American region and descriptions found in the Book of Mormon. if you're into archaeology or if it's something you're looking to learn about, this book is a good starting point.

Ahem.

Mormons are not Christians.

The definition of a Christian is someone who adheres only to the Holy Bible, believes that Jesus Christ is True Man and True God and was the same man prophesied in the Old Testament as the coming Messiah, and that he died on the cross to save your sins.

Mormons, although they believe that Jesus was their savior, they do not believe that Jesus was True God and True Man. They believe that He got His divinity when He was baptized, and He lost it on the cross before He died. They say they are Christians, and if they want to believe that, that's fine, but they're not.

The details in your second paragraph are inaccurate, in caseyou're interested.

It seems to make you happy to say that, so be my guest.




Why is it that people insist on taking this stuff personally?

You want to know why homosexuality isn't compatible with conservative Christianity? Read the Bible and pray for the answers. I can theorize for ya, but really I can't claim to know for sure.

Either way it's not like we sit around at meetings thinking of new and better ways to exclude people, nor do we trash talk anybody, and I've never heard any Mormon refer to homosexuals in derisive or abusive language.

But that won't make a difference to you, will it?

Ever eaten shellfish? Had a garden? Worn a cotton/poly blend? Then you're going to hell with us fags.

It seems to make you happy to say that, so be my guest.

It's like saying, "Well you can join my club for free... but you won't be getting any of the benefits that the paying members receive."

Why is it that people insist on taking this stuff personally?

You want to know why homosexuality isn't compatible with conservative Christianity? Read the Bible and pray for the answers. I can theorize for ya, but really I can't claim to know for sure.

Either way it's not like we sit around at meetings thinking of new and better ways to exclude people, nor do we trash talk anybody, and I've never heard any Mormon refer to homosexuals in derisive or abusive language.

But that won't make a difference to you, will it?

But the church doesn't have to act this way. You could admit gays and give them the same rights as everyone else, but you choose not to.

Ever eaten shellfish? Had a garden? Worn a cotton/poly blend? Then you're going to hell with us fags.

Oh, god, I hope not! Not even there would we be rid of them.

Oh, god, I hope not! Not even there would we be rid of them.

There goes the neighborhood. :D

Do you know the name of the episode, or at least which season it's part of?

"All About Mormons", season seven episode 12.

I hate to break it to you, but the universe doesn't revolve around this issue.

What a great excuse for bigotry.

Also seems like you don't sit around at meetings thinking of new and better ways to be tolerant and accepting of people.

I hate to break it to you, but the universe doesn't revolve around this issue.

There goes the neighborhood. :D

No, no - the gaybourhood. Honestly, hell must have some standards at least.

"All About Mormons", season seven episode 12.

Thankee.

There's a really good book written from an archaeological field called "Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon." It's a little technical but I highly recommend it.

It's not known exactly where the colonists landed but this book has some very good theories using local archaeology in the Central American region and descriptions found in the Book of Mormon. if you're into archaeology or if it's something you're looking to learn about, this book is a good starting point.

Well, I'm not interested in Mormonism so I won't be reading it. But at least you guys went to the trouble of writing a book.

For the record, is 100% believing the book of Mormon necessary to being a Mormon? I mean many Churches allow leeway on creationism/evolution, among other things, so is it the same with the book of Mormon?

I hate to break it to you, but the universe doesn't revolve around this issue.

Yeah, so stop bringing it up, kids! It's obvious Neo Bretonnia can't defend the bigotry and all (s)he can do is prefer to turn a blissfully blind eye to it.

It's like saying, "Well you can join my club for free... but you won't be getting any of the benefits that the paying members receive."



But the church doesn't have to act this way. You could admit gays and give them the same rights as everyone else, but you choose not to.

If the Lord indicates to the Church that henceforth homosexuals will be accorded the same status as any other person in terms of membership, then we'd do it instantly.

Until then, this is how it is.

If you don't believe that the religion is true then fine, ignore it. We're not out there hurting anybody. But the fact is that if the church IS true, and I believe it to be so, then it MUST change only as a response to a commandment from the Lord.

Whether you agree with that or not, do you at least see where I'm coming from?

Well, I'm not interested in Mormonism so I won't be reading it. But at least you guys went to the trouble of writing a book.

For the record, is 100% believing the book of Mormon necessary to being a Mormon? I mean many Churches allow leeway on creationism/evolution, among other things, so is it the same with the book of Mormon?

The requirement for joining the Church is to have a testimony of the truth of the Church, that Joseph Smith was a Prophet, and one must covenant to follow Jesus Christ and His teachings.

Some menbers believe in Evolution, some don't. It's not important for Salvation.

The requirement for joining the Church is to have a testimony of the truth of the Church, that Joseph Smith was a Prophet, and one must covenant to follow Jesus Christ and His teachings.

Some menbers believe in Evolution, some don't. It's not important for Salvation.

You know, a prophet probably woulda seen the getting shot coming.

If the Lord indicates to the Church that henceforth homosexuals will be accorded the same status as any other person in terms of membership, then we'd do it instantly.

Until then, this is how it is.

If you don't believe that the religion is true then fine, ignore it. We're not out there hurting anybody. But the fact is that if the church IS true, and I believe it to be so, then it MUST change only as a response to a commandment from the Lord.

Whether you agree with that or not, do you at least see where I'm coming from?

And if God said that Blacks weren't given the same "status" as white folk?

Should we go back to what we were doing between 1608 to the late 1960s and continue to treat them as sub-human or second class citizens?

You know, a prophet probably woulda seen the getting shot coming.

Don't be ridiculous, he wasn't psychic. He just talked to angels. See, so sane.

Mormons are not Christians.

I find that just as odd as claiming catholicism isn't really a branch of christianity.

The definition of a Christian is someone who adheres only to the Holy Bible, believes that Jesus Christ is True Man and True God and was the same man prophesied in the Old Testament as the coming Messiah, and that he died on the cross to save your sins.

according to who? the "definition" of a christian I grew up with was believing jesus was the messiah, and did for your sins.

which the mormons seem to believe.

Don't be ridiculous, he wasn't psychic. He just talked to angels. See, so sane.

Oh quite right.

"I'm sorry I'm late, the voices in my head kept telling me to pull over and clean the guns".

Whether you agree with that or not, do you at least see where I'm coming from?

"I'm not the bigot! The lord is! It's his fault we have to be douches!"

Yeah, so stop bringing it up, kids! It's obvious Neo Bretonnia can't defend the bigotry and all (s)he can do is prefer to turn a blissfully blind eye to it.

Go get that toothache checked out. It makes you grouchy.

It's not important for Salvation.

speaking of, why do you seek salvation from a man anyway?

"Remember that God, our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child, a mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of progress, in the school of advancement; has moved forward and overcome, until He has arrived at the point were He is." -LDS Apostle Orson Hyde

Go get that toothache checked out. It makes you grouchy.

Oh, shun me why don't you? Wouldn't want to anger your false god, now would you?

Haven't you heard? Faggots are yucky. There's your answer.

I don't know...they actually look pretty good here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_%28food%29)...

Oh, different definition of the word...yeah, these guys are probably pretty gross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_faggot_worm)...

OK, back on topic. Yes. Mormons. Those guys from Utah who vote Republican, dress well, ride bikes, are exceedingly polite, read a lot, and are mind-numbingly persistent. I'm a bit biased because the only Mormons I've ever met tried to convert me. And this was after I told them I just converted to Catholicism...they STILL pushed me to "educate" myself about the Book of Mormon. Apparently, their Jesus can beat up my Jesus.

If the Lord indicates to the Church that henceforth homosexuals will be accorded the same status as any other person in terms of membership, then we'd do it instantly.

Just how would "the Lord" go about doing this?

do you have a pope or something?

I don't know...they actually look pretty good here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_%28food%29)...

Oh, different definition of the word...yeah, these guys are probably pretty gross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_faggot_worm)...

OK, back on topic. Yes. Mormons. Those guys from Utah who vote Republican, dress well, ride bikes, are exceedingly polite, read a lot, and are mind-numbingly persistent. I'm a bit biased because the only Mormons I've ever met tried to convert me. And this was after I told them I just converted to Catholicism...they STILL pushed me to "educate" myself about the Book of Mormon. Apparently, their Jesus can beat up my Jesus.

Their god has a much bigger dick than your god. I wonder how they decide which prophet is really a prophet? I mean are all Catholic saints misguided and the tales of their miracles lies?

Just how would "the Lord" go about doing this?

do you have a pope or something?

they have apostles, which apparently still walk with Jesus and even though Jesus is no longer divine he tells them stuff, and they write it down in their little books and then it's official church doctrine only if you ask the Mormons about it they either dismiss it entirely and try not to comment on it, or they say "well, it's complicated"

I have tried, for years, to find answers, but they won't give them to me, they say "pray about it and find out" only I do pray about it, and I still have questions about how a church that believes so many things that don't have scriptural backing in the Bible and go against what Jesus actually said can call themselves "followers of Christ"

If the Lord indicates to the Church that henceforth homosexuals will be accorded the same status as any other person in terms of membership, then we'd do it instantly.

Somehow I doubt that even Jesus coming down from heaven in a big, shining descent, hopping on CNN and al-Jazeera, and saying, "Leave the gays alone already; they're OK by me!" will affect some of the most hardened religious assholes out there.

Frankly, the next day, we'll be seeing the Phelps three-ring circus outside their little shithole in Kansas holding up signs that say, "God Hates imposter Jesus!" and "America and Imposter Jesus are Doomed."

Actually, I'd like to see Jesus turn them into duck-billed platypuses if they try that...

Speaking of which, this is a funny video from an Australian TV series where the host, fed up with Mormons door-knocking on Saturday mornings, goes to Utah to promote atheism, Mormon-style.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRmC0DaE6rE

Somehow I doubt that even Jesus coming down from heaven in a big, shining descent, hopping on CNN and al-Jazeera, and saying, "Leave the gays alone already; they're OK by me!" will affect some of the most hardened religious assholes out there.

Frankly, the next day, we'll be seeing the Phelps three-ring circus outside their little shithole in Kansas holding up signs that say, "God Hates imposter Jesus!" and "America and Imposter Jesus are Doomed."

Actually, I'd like to see Jesus turn them into duck-billed platypuses if they try that...

Give me the power of god for one shake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shake_%28time%29) and the world's problems will be solved.

Their god has a much bigger dick than your god. I wonder how they decide which prophet is really a prophet? I mean are all Catholic saints misguided and the tales of their miracles lies?

Well, according to a lot of misguided peeps, we're not even Christians, despite the fact that the Church was around for a lot longer than most of these Protestant offshoots. So yes, according to them, we worship Mary and idolize saints.

And we all screw little boys, despite the fact that I don't even like little boys in a non-sexual manner...

Well, according to a lot of misguided peeps, we're not even Christians, despite the fact that the Church was around for a lot longer than most of these Protestant offshoots. So yes, according to them, we worship Mary and idolize saints.

And we all screw little boys, despite the fact that I don't even like little boys in a non-sexual manner...

The problem comes in when you say that their saints are lying but your prophets aren't. Without empirical evidence either way it becomes a rather pathetic back and forth between toddlers.

Give me the power of god for one shake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shake_%28time%29) and the world's problems will be solved.

I don't know...I think the world's problems are pretty serious. It might take most of a microsecond.

Damn, why do I always get Mormoms and Quakers confused. I thought this was going to be about Quakers... :(

"I'm not the bigot! The lord is! It's his fault we have to be douches!"

Ahh so it's cool for you to make bigoted and personal inflammatory remarks but it's not hypocrisy?

You came into this thread with a chip on your shoulder from the very beginning, so you made it clear from the start that you're incapable of having a rational conversation about this kind of thing.

You hate the church. We get it. You interpret everything by how it relates to the issue of homosexuality. Fine, if that's what gets you through the day.

Just know that when you keep harping on it, you're not being clever, funny or smart. You're showing you've got anger issues, and it's not particularly impressive.

As to the homosexuality/church membership issue. I've answered the question as best I can. You want to interpret it as bigotry, fine. Whatever floats your boat. Just so you now, you're being equally bigoted by being unwilling to talk about it rationally with me, for no other reason than my religion. That, by the way, is bigotry. I don't have to answer to you.

My brother is gay and our relationship is fine. He doesn't seem to feel persecuted or trodden upon, and he knows more about me and my beliefs than you ever will.

Ahh so it's cool for you to make bigoted and personal inflammatory remarks but it's not hypocrisy?

I have said nothing in this thread that isn't true. You use your deity as an excuse to be a bigot, and when people pressure you on it, you go "lalala".

You came into this thread with a chip on your shoulder from the very beginning, so you made it clear from the start that you're incapable of having a rational conversation about this kind of thing.

Rational discourse? You believe in Mormonism! Rationality is a boat that sailed without you on it quite a while ago.

You hate the church. We get it. You interpret everything by how it relates to the issue of homosexuality. Fine, if that's what gets you through the day.

You're telling me I as a gay person find it quite important to point out your stances on people like me? Imagine that!

Just know that when you keep harping on it, you're not being clever, funny or smart. You're showing you've got anger issues, and it's not particularly impressive.

I am being clever, funny and smart. It's just that Mormonism precludes the enjoyment of all three of those, so you're excused for toeing that line.

As to the homosexuality/church membership issue. I've answered the question as best I can. You want to interpret it as bigotry, fine.

I don't have to "interpret" anything. I'm just calling a spade a spade.

I don't have to answer to you.

No, you are clearly incapable of answering to me.

My brother is gay and our relationship is fine. He doesn't seem to feel persecuted or trodden upon, and he knows more about me and my beliefs than you ever will.

He's just not allowed to be your equal. Isn't he lucky to have you as a brother - you who choose a 19th century loon's nonsense over him? What a swell person you are.

There's a really good book written from an archaeological field called "Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon." It's a little technical but I highly recommend it.

It's not known exactly where the colonists landed but this book has some very good theories using local archaeology in the Central American region and descriptions found in the Book of Mormon. if you're into archaeology or if it's something you're looking to learn about, this book is a good starting point.

That's the thing, there's no evidence that the stories of the book of Mormon happened. There's overwhelming evidence they didn't.

But, here's some earnest questions.

If the Native Americans are descended from Lehi, why are there no traces of Hebrew in any of the diverse Native American dialects?

How do you reconcile the following:
-The Book of Mormon states Lehi rode horses in America. There were no horses here until the 16th century when the Spaniards brought them over.
-Nephi had a bow of steel, Jews didn't have steel during that time, and there was no steel in Americal until the Spanish colonization.
-There's also mention of silk in the Book of Mormon. There was no silk in America at that time.
-There's genetic evidence the Native Americans did not have middle eastern ancestors.

And how do you reconcile what the Bible says about new teachings:
Gal 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

2 Cor 11:13-15 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

Mark 13:24-25 For false Christs [or messiahs] and false prophets shall rise, and shall show signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect. See, I have told you ahead of time.

2 Tim 4:2- 4:4 Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction.
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.


Archeology, DNA, and the Bible are not in line with the Book of Mormon.

I have said nothing in this thread that isn't true. You use your deity as an excuse to be a bigot, and when people pressure you on it, you go "lalala".



Rational discourse? You believe in Mormonism! Rationality is a boat that sailed without you on it quite a while ago.



You're telling me I as a gay person find it quite important to point out your stances on people like me? Imagine that!



I am being clever, funny and smart. It's just that Mormonism precludes the enjoyment of all three of those, so you're excused for toeing that line.



I don't have to "interpret" anything. I'm just calling a spade a spade.



No, you are clearly incapable of answering to me.



He's just not allowed to be your equal. Isn't he lucky to have you as a brother - you who choose a 19th century loon's nonsense over him? What a swell person you are.

Are you finished? 'cause I'm not taking your bait.

Not to mention Jesus gave Peter sole aouthority to continue His church on earth. If you aren't in line with that church, you aren't really following Christ.

Are you finished? 'cause I'm not taking your bait.

I don't think he ever is.

Are you finished? 'cause I'm not taking your bait.

Take what you want. No amount of magical underwear will make the truth go away.

I find that just as odd as claiming catholicism isn't really a branch of christianity.
Somebody isn't reading their Bible.

Somebody isn't reading their Bible.

Their version is better!

Ahem.

Mormons are not Christians.

The definition of a Christian is someone who adheres only to the Holy Bible, believes that Jesus Christ is True Man and True God and was the same man prophesied in the Old Testament as the coming Messiah, and that he died on the cross to save your sins.

Mormons, although they believe that Jesus was their savior, they do not believe that Jesus was True God and True Man. They believe that He got His divinity when He was baptized, and He lost it on the cross before He died. They say they are Christians, and if they want to believe that, that's fine, but they're not.

AHEM

anyone who accepts the divinity of christ and follows his teachings is a christian.

you might take issue with the details of their theology but you cannot deny their christianity.

Somebody isn't reading their Bible.which version? and which interpretation should I actually use?

The mormons have the bible and the bible part 2. ;)

or are you saying the the bible is it? does that mean you think catholicism isn't christianity since they have the bible and extra books not included in the final cut?

Their version is better!

Yes, version 2.5 must be better, it has the higher release number. Higher release numbers are always better. Ask Microsoft.

I don't think he ever is.

Roger that.

Not to mention Jesus gave Peter sole aouthority to continue His church on earth. If you aren't in line with that church, you aren't really following Christ.

As I recall from my Catholic days, that's from the point at which Jesus said to Peter "you are the Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my church."

Catholic interpretation of that is that this was the first appointment of a Pope, namely, Peter.

Mormon interpretation of that is that Jesus refered to the rock of Peter's faith, which is the foundation for His church.

In either case, I don't see that it addresses whether or not the particular organization is Christian.

which version? and which interpretation should I actually use?

The mormons have the bible and the bible part 2. ;)

or are you saying the the bible is it? does that mean you think catholicism isn't christianity since they have the bible and extra books not included in the final cut?

The Book of Mormon /= the Bible. I'm talking about the Bible. If you are going to bash Catholics, you might want to get your facts straight. The Catholic Church is Peter's church. You know who Peter is right? The apostle. The only person Jesus gave authority to continue His Church on earth. That fellow.

Secondly, the Catholics decided what's in the final cut the Christian Bible you read today. First Council of Nicea 325 A.D.

And by "other books" you mean the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That's not scripture. It never was scripture. It doesn't claim to be scripture. It's basically a summary of tradition, bylaws if you will. It's not a holy text.

As I recall from my Catholic days, that's from the point at which Jesus said to Peter "you are the Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my church."

Catholic interpretation of that is that this was the first appointment of a Pope, namely, Peter.

Mormon interpretation of that is that Jesus refered to the rock of Peter's faith, which is the foundation for His church.

In either case, I don't see that it addresses whether or not the particular organization is Christian.

Funny, you fail to address my first post to you. But okay, let's debate Catholicism.

You might want to consult your Bible. Jesus goes a bit further than that. Matthew 16:18-19 (Jesus talking) And I tell you that you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not overcome it; I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

The Book of Mormon /= the Bible. I'm talking about the Bible. If you are going to bash Catholics, you might want to get your facts straight. The Catholic Church is Peter's church. You know who Peter is right? The apostle. The only person Jesus gave authority to continue His Church on earth. That fellow.

Secondly, the Catholics decided what's in the final cut the Christian Bible you read today. First Council of Nicea 325 A.D.

And by "other books" you mean the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That's not scripture. It never was scripture. It doesn't claim to be scripture. It's basically a summary of tradition, bylaws if you will. It's not a holy text.

the bible and bible part 2 remark was to the point of (and I didn't read all of the pages so I could be wrong) the momons believe in the bible and they have a second one.

where did I bash catholics?

I remember hearing (never bothered to go any further because I did not care) that there are some (may only be one can't remember now) books in the catholic version of the bible that are not in protestant versions.

also there was something about there being divinely inspired books that were non-canon (ie god told people to write it, but it wasn't put in the bible)


I asked for which interpretation to use as well. by you catholic interpretation of the rock verse, the only christians are catholic. protestants are not christians?

Funny, you fail to address my first post to you. But okay, let's debate Catholicism.

You might want to consult your Bible. Jesus goes a bit further than that. Matthew 16:18-19 (Jesus talking) And I tell you that you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not overcome it; I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Whoa there, I wasn't trying to debate you just telling what I was taught.

Sheesh, relax.

Funny, you fail to address my first post to you. But okay, let's debate Catholicism.

I just went looking for the post you mentioned. I hadn't seen it before now.

You know, for someone who seems to dislike people picking at Catholic beliefs so much, you seem rather quick to go picking on someone else's. Are your questions truly in earnest, as you say, or are you picking a fight?

if it's the former, I'll respond. if it's the latter, I won't.

the bible and bible part 2 remark was to the point of (and I didn't read all of the pages so I could be wrong) the momons believe in the bible and they have a second one.
It's an additional scripture. I was just pointing out the difference to avoid confusion.

where did I bash catholics?
That's how I took your "Catholics aren't Christians" remark. Judging by your question, I think I took that wrong. I apologize.

I remember hearing (never bothered to go any further because I did not care) that there are some (may only be one can't remember now) books in the catholic version of the bible that are not in protestant versions.
Well, the Protestants dropped some Deuterocanonical texts from their Bible (Judith, Tobit, and Maccabees). So, you've got that backwards. They are (or were) texts from the Torah. I thould mention this is all OT stuff.

also there was something about there being divinely inspired books that were non-canon (ie god told people to write it, but it wasn't put in the bible)
That's the apocrapha. Those are various texts, most of them Gnostic, that weren't included in the Bible for various reasons. Apocrapha is not considered part of the Canonical (in other words: authorized) Bible by the Catholics (or Protestants for that matter).

I asked for which interpretation to use as well.
Right now I have an NIV and NSRV in front of me and 6 other tranlations on my iPod. There's no "Catholic translation". Here's the KJV (accepted by Protestants everywhere) translation:
Matt 16:18- 19And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

by you catholic interpretation of the rock verse, the only christians are catholic. protestants are not christians?
You are also confusing two things. If you accepts Jesus Christ is the Son of God who came to earth and died for your sins, then you are Christian. That verse refers to the church. Do many Catholics believe they worship in the "One True Church"? Yes. What exactly the implications are of that is a different debate.

:confused: I'm lost. What exactly are you arguing? As far as I can tell momonism is just another version of chrisitianity. I don't see you aruging against that. I could just be missing it.


my "chatholics aren't christians" remark was saying that saying that is just as odd to me as claiming mormons are not christians.

:confused: I'm lost. What exactly are you arguing? As far as I can tell momonism is just another version of chrisitianity. I don't see you aruging against that. I could just be missing it.

http://www.afcministry.com/What_do_Mormons_believe_about_God.htm

http://www.afcministry.com/What_do_Mormons_believe_about_God.htm

sooo you're claiming momonism is fake?

your preaching the the choir. (pun intended). I think all religion is bunk. But I do find it entertaining.

Whoa there, I wasn't trying to debate you just telling what I was taught.

Sheesh, relax.

I just went looking for the post you mentioned. I hadn't seen it before now.

You know, for someone who seems to dislike people picking at Catholic beliefs so much, you seem rather quick to go picking on someone else's. Are your questions truly in earnest, as you say, or are you picking a fight?

if it's the former, I'll respond. if it's the latter, I won't.
Hey now, you are misunderstanding my intent. Debate /= argument. Debate = serious discussion of two opposing sides. Don't take it personally. This isn't about you and your beliefs. I'm not playing the apologetics game here, I'm not trying to convert you or make you look like an ass. I'm not trying to flame, troll, or otherwise pick a fight.

You can poke at Catholics, Christians, or Christianity all day. I'll be happy and willing to dialouge about it, debate it, discuss it, whatever you want to call it. I'm only going to get exceedingly bitchy when people can't back up their claims. Just like any other debate. Some people on this forum love to debate scripture they've never read, never bothered to learn the historical context of, or who the book was written for. I'm not saying that's you, as far as I know, this is our first dialouge. I'm just saying.

But I love theology, especially Christian theology. And Mormonsism fascinates me. So there you go.

:confused: I'm lost. What exactly are you arguing? As far as I can tell momonism is just another version of chrisitianity. I don't see you aruging against that. I could just be missing it.


my "chatholics aren't christians" remark was saying that saying that is just as odd to me as claiming mormons are not christians.

mormons are what one might call heretical christians because they do not follow the nicean creed and they have an extra book or 2 of scripture.

no other christian denomination follows the book of mormon or recongnizes it as the word of god. no other denomination baptises the dead. no other denomination has living prophets--not even the pope can make new pronouncements based on his conversations with god. (well ok there might be a few obscure denominations with their own prophets but they are too hard to keep track of)

it puts them into another category of christians.

when christians will fight to the death over the question of infant baptism, you cant expect them to take a new testament of jesus christ sitting down.

:confused: I'm lost. What exactly are you arguing? As far as I can tell momonism is just another version of chrisitianity. I don't see you aruging against that. I could just be missing it.
We are kind of on a side tangent, but I wasn't arguing the validity of Mormonism either way with you. We got on this tangent when I responded to your "catholics aren't christians" comment. I made that because I thought it was a funny choice of denominations for the reasons I explained. From there, I was just clarifying, responding to your debate points.


my "chatholics aren't christians" remark was saying that saying that is just as odd to me as claiming mormons are not christians.
Yeah, I kind of got that after your question in the last post. Sorry about that.

mormons are what one might call heretical christians because they do not follow the nicean creed and they have an extra book or 2 of scripture.

no other christian denomination follows the book of mormon or recongnizes it as the word of god. no other denomination baptises the dead. no other denomination has living prophets--not even the pope can make new pronouncements based on his conversations with god. (well ok there might be a few obscure denominations with their own prophets but they are too hard to keep track of)

it puts them into another category of christians.

when christians will fight to the death over the question of infant baptism, you cant expect them to take a new testament of jesus christ sitting down.
they are not a "new catagory of Christians" they are a whole other religion.

http://www.carm.org/lds/definitions.htm

sooo you're claiming momonism is fake?

your preaching the the choir. (pun intended). I think all religion is bunk. But I do find it entertaining.however, some religions are more bunk than others.

Hey now, you are misunderstanding my intent. Debate /= argument. Debate = serious discussion of two opposing sides. Don't take it personally. This isn't about you and your beliefs. I'm not playing the apologetics game here, I'm not trying to convert you or make you look like an ass. I'm not trying to flame, troll, or otherwise pick a fight.

You can poke at Catholics, Christians, or Christianity all day. I'll be happy and willing to dialouge about it, debate it, discuss it, whatever you want to call it. I'm only going to get exceedingly bitchy when people can't back up their claims. Just like any other debate. Some people on this forum love to debate scripture they've never read, never bothered to learn the historical context of, or who the book was written for. I'm not saying that's you, as far as I know, this is our first dialouge. I'm just saying.

But I love theology, especially Christian theology. And Mormonsism fascinates me. So there you go.

Alright cool. It came across as being more confrontational than you apprently meant for it to, so if that's all, then we're cool.

My main thing is: I don't pick on Catholics. I used to be a Catholic and I have nothing but fond thoughts and feelings toward the Church and the people in it. My parents are both Catholic as is the majority of my family on dad's side. In my whole life, I've only ever met two people who truly demonstrated Christianity as I believe Jesus Christ would have done. One was a Mormon Stake President, the other was a Catholic Priest. That priest has since passed away and even now when I remember him I get a lump in my throat, because that man showed me compassion and understanding at a time in my life when it felt as though nobody else would. I'd give anything to be able to thank him for that.

So no, I don't pick on them. In fact, I'll defend them as aggressively as I would my own beliefs. I don't believe in Catholic doctrine anymore, but I do owe the church a lot of gratitude for being the ones who first taught me about the Savior, who taught me honor and honesty, and especially for that priest who taught me that you're never too important or too stuffy to bring comfort to a 12 year old boy whose family has just been shattered.

I just wanted you to know that, because it seems as if you thought I was attacking.

it puts them into another category of christians.



This is true in that we(Mormons) do not consider ourselves to be Protestants.

Mormonism has absolutely no evidence for its claims, but rather, has a ridiculously huge amount of archaelogical, linguistic and historial evidence against the timeline presented in the Book of Mormon. Even more so than mainline Christianity, Mormonism is the height of retardation and anti-rationality, the rejection of science, and the worship of willful ignorance.

This is true in that we(Mormons) do not consider ourselves to be Protestants.of course not, you consider yourselves bettaer than that, and righter than that.

Can you now show me the golden plates, please?

There's a really good book written from an archaeological field called "Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon." It's a little technical but I highly recommend it.

It's not known exactly where the colonists landed but this book has some very good theories using local archaeology in the Central American region and descriptions found in the Book of Mormon. if you're into archaeology or if it's something you're looking to learn about, this book is a good starting point.

oh, so the horses and chariots and cows and wheat were in central america, rather than new york? good to know...

http://www.afcministry.com/What_do_Mormons_believe_about_God.htm

they are not a "new catagory of Christians" they are a whole other religion.

http://www.carm.org/lds/definitions.htm

Smunkeeville, don't you find it interesting that while Mormons and Evalgelical Christians have slightly different meanings for many terms, that perhaps it would be useful to keep those definitions in mind when looking at Mormon literature? The first page you linked to doesn't seem to have done so, and is therefore putting a spin on the context. Not a really big deal, but if someone truly wants to understand, this might lead them to false conclusions.

I also liked how the second site had one colum labeled "LDS" and the other colum labeled "Bible" as though the two were mutually exclusive.

Are Mormons Christians? Yes we are. Absolutely. Do we see it from the same perspective you do? Nope, but then that doesn't have to result in an argument. Mormons are perfectly happy to acknowledge the Christianity of Catholics, Baptists, etc because the point is to follow Jesus Christ.

Mormonism has absolutely no evidence for its claims, but rather, has a ridiculously huge amount of archaelogical, linguistic and historial evidence against the timeline presented in the Book of Mormon. Even more so than mainline Christianity, Mormonism is the height of retardation and anti-rationality, the rejection of science, and the worship of willful ignorance.

hey now, clearly dna is wrong about the ancestry of native americans and egyptologists have no idea how to translate hieroglyphs.

of course not, you consider yourselves bettaer than that, and righter than that.

It's simply an inaccurate classification. Why are you trying to make it an inflammatory statement?


Can you now show me the golden plates, please?

Nope. (And if I could, would it make any difference? Didn't think so.)

Alright cool. It came across as being more confrontational than you apprently meant for it to, so if that's all, then we're cool.
Yeah, I do that sometimes. It's kind of easy to forget facial expressions and tone of voice don't translate into typewritten language.

My main thing is: I don't pick on Catholics. I used to be a Catholic and I have nothing but fond thoughts and feelings toward the Church and the people in it. My parents are both Catholic as is the majority of my family on dad's side. In my whole life, I've only ever met two people who truly demonstrated Christianity as I believe Jesus Christ would have done. One was a Mormon Stake President, the other was a Catholic Priest. That priest has since passed away and even now when I remember him I get a lump in my throat, because that man showed me compassion and understanding at a time in my life when it felt as though nobody else would. I'd give anything to be able to thank him for that.

So no, I don't pick on them. In fact, I'll defend them as aggressively as I would my own beliefs. I don't believe in Catholic doctrine anymore, but I do owe the church a lot of gratitude for being the ones who first taught me about the Savior, who taught me honor and honesty, and especially for that priest who taught me that you're never too important or too stuffy to bring comfort to a 12 year old boy whose family has just been shattered.

And I'm not saying you do or would. I'm just saying. To me, there's a huge difference between challenging one's personal beliefs and challeging religious doctrine. It's always good to challenge, discuss, debate doctrine. It's a healthy intellectual exercise, and we learn quite a bit about each other's beliefs. And it's just interesting.

And Catholic humor is the best.:D


I just wanted you to know that, because it seems as if you thought I was attacking.
Fair enough. Always good to be on level ground.

Mormonism has absolutely no evidence for its claims, but rather, has a ridiculously huge amount of archaelogical, linguistic and historial evidence against the timeline presented in the Book of Mormon. Even more so than mainline Christianity, Mormonism is the height of retardation and anti-rationality, the rejection of science, and the worship of willful ignorance.

Thank you for your objective and positive contribution to the discussion. :rolleyes:

Mormons are perfectly happy to acknowledge the Christianity of Catholics, Baptists, etc because the point is to follow Jesus Christ.
does that mean you don't have to be a mormon to go to heaven?


edit: ignore that XD I am only half here. I've bee off all day. just one of those rainy days. :-p

they are not a "new catagory of Christians" they are a whole other religion.

http://www.carm.org/lds/definitions.htm

then they are a whole other CHRISTIAN religion.

*poke*

Neo, can you please respond to my previous post?:)

Thank you for your objective and positive contribution to the discussion. :rolleyes:

There is nothing positive to be said about Mormonism (EDIT: or any other religion. I view all with disdain). It is, quite simply, wrong; and that's from the most objective platform we have: careful, incremental gains of evidence, mutually supporting many distinct hypothesis. In other words, science disagrees with Mormonism. Ergo, unless Mormonism can produce evidence to the contrary, it's wrong. Objectively so.

This is true in that we(Mormons) do not consider ourselves to be Protestants.

yeah i dont know what the correct term is. christian heretics is a rather loaded term. there must be something better for those who go beyond the bible.

yeah i dont know what the correct term is. christian heretics is a rather loaded term. there must be something better for those who go beyond the bible.

Mormonism is part of the "restorationism" branch of Christianity, along with Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventism and Pentecostalism.

then they are a whole other CHRISTIAN religion.
Just because they use the word Jesus doesn't mean the Jesus they "follow" is the Jesus of Christianity.

I can call you Fass all day Ashmoria, doesn't make it true.

There is nothing positive to be said about Mormonism (EDIT: or any other religion. I view all with disdain). It is, quite simply, wrong; and that's from the most objective platform we have: careful, incremental gains of evidence, mutually supporting many distinct hypothesis. In other words, science disagrees with Mormonism. Ergo, unless Mormonism can produce evidence to the contrary, it's wrong. Objectively so.

Well if you disdain all religion then there's little to gain by debating the elements of any particular one. Why are you bothering?

Well if you disdain all religion then there's little to gain by debating the elements of any particular one. Why are you bothering?

I have hope that someday humanity will rise above imaginary friends. However, that's not going to happen unless the absurdity of such a notion is pointed out at every available moment.

Just because they use the word Jesus doesn't mean the Jesus they "follow" is the Jesus of Christianity.

I can call you Fass all day Ashmoria, doesn't make it true.

There was one, and only one Jesus the Christ, Son of the Living God who died on the cross for the sins of humanity. One either follows Him and takes upon oneself His name, or they do not.

It's not for you to decide whether I am a Christian. That's between me and my Father in Heaven. You don't get to make that call.

I have hope that someday humanity will rise above imaginary friends. However, that's not going to happen unless the absurdity of such a notion is pointed out at every available moment.

And what the does it hurt you? Leave people the fuck alone about their personal life.

*poke*

Neo, can you please respond to my previous post?:)

yeah sorry about that got kinda caught up there for a minute...



But, here's some earnest questions.

If the Native Americans are descended from Lehi, why are there no traces of Hebrew in any of the diverse Native American dialects?


I'm not a linguistics expert, but there actually are such traces. The book I mentioned earlier has a little about that contained therin, but I'm not well versed enough to go into much detail. I would point out, however, that Lehi's people not only mixed with existing residents but those tribes most directly descended from his people were anhilated in wars.


How do you reconcile the following:
-The Book of Mormon states Lehi rode horses in America. There were no horses here until the 16th century when the Spaniards brought them over.
-Nephi had a bow of steel, Jews didn't have steel during that time, and there was no steel in Americal until the Spanish colonization.
-There's also mention of silk in the Book of Mormon. There was no silk in America at that time.


There is archaeological evidence to indicate that those assertions aren't so sure. Remains of not only horses but of elephants have been discovered that predate this period of history. Obviously, we're not talking the same species as what would have been found in Asia and Africa at the time, but elephants there were. I don't know much of the details, but if I find the article I'll TG you on it if you're interested.

I'm not a metalworker but I do know that steel = iron with greater levels of refinement and carbon forging. I know that answer isn't very satisfying but I'm happy to do some research on this for you.

Edit:There wasn't Oriental silk.


-There's genetic evidence the Native Americans did not have middle eastern ancestors.

I'm not too impressed with the methodology used to make that determination. As I recall, the reasearch in question was done by a group that was actively working to debunk the Book of Mormon's assertions and so their objectivity is uncertain.


And how do you reconcile what the Bible says about new teachings:
Gal 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

2 Cor 11:13-15 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

Mark 13:24-25 For false Christs [or messiahs] and false prophets shall rise, and shall show signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect. See, I have told you ahead of time.

2 Tim 4:2- 4:4 Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction.
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.



One thing to keep in mind is that when Joseph Smith began his work in the 1800s, he wasn't starting up a brand new Church. It is our assertion that he RESTORED the original Church as it was during the time of Christ. This, by the way, is why the organizational structure between the LDS church and the Roman Catholic Church are so similar. One traces back to the classical period, the other is a restoration of it. Therefore, those very same verses would be read as refering to the LDS teachings as the true gospel, and the others as different.

Just because they use the word Jesus doesn't mean the Jesus they "follow" is the Jesus of Christianity.

I can call you Fass all day Ashmoria, doesn't make it true.

now that would just be mean!

we can never know if our understanding of jesus matches up perfectly with the historical jesus.

while mormonism's understanding of the divinity of jesus is clearly at odds with the rest of christianity they still consider jesus divine, still worship him, and still follow his teachings. that makes them christians no matter what is found in the book of mormon. no matter what their errors, that makes them christians.

I have hope that someday humanity will rise above imaginary friends. However, that's not going to happen unless the absurdity of such a notion is pointed out at every available moment.

How altruistic of you. Am I supposed to be grateful?

There was one, and only one Jesus the Christ, Son of the Living God who died on the cross for the sins of humanity. One either follows Him and takes upon oneself His name, or they do not.

It's not for you to decide whether I am a Christian. That's between me and my Father in Heaven. You don't get to make that call.

She's making an observation based on her beliefs. No reason to get testy. There are big differences betweent Mormonism and the rest of Christianity yeah? That's what this thread is about.

And what the does it hurt you? Leave people the fuck alone about their personal life.

No. People need to be challenged. Religion encourages the opposite: accept the dogma, no questions asked, or go to hell/be reincarnated as a slug/whatever. I am forcing people to think, simply by bringing up the topic.

Religion hurts me by propagating anti-rationality, backwards thinking, discrimination against my sexuality and propagandistic efforts against science as a whole.

Mormonism is part of the "restorationism" branch of Christianity, along with Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventism and Pentecostalism.

because they start at (what they consider to be) the beginning and "re-imagine" christianity from scratch rather than taking someone else's interpretation and working from that?

No. People need to be challenged. Religion encourages the opposite: accept the dogma, no questions asked, or go to hell/be reincarnated as a slug/whatever. I am forcing people to think, simply by bringing up the topic.

Religion hurts me by propagating anti-rationality, backwards thinking, discrimination against my sexuality and propagandistic efforts against science as a whole.

you must be real fun at parties.

because they start at (what they consider to be) the beginning and "re-imagine" christianity from scratch rather than taking someone else's interpretation and working from that?

No, because they believe they are "restoring" a lost version of the church. The fact that they're made up retcons doesn't really enter their minds, sadly.

She's making an observation based on her beliefs. No reason to get testy. There are big differences betweent Mormonism and the rest of Christianity yeah? That's what this thread is about.

I don't mean to get testy. It's just that I was kinda disappointed that it was Smunk carrying the Mormons =/= Christians torch.

you must be real fun at parties.

Actually, I am. :D

No. People need to be challenged. Religion encourages the opposite: accept the dogma, no questions asked, or go to hell/be reincarnated as a slug/whatever. I am forcing people to think, simply by bringing up the topic.

Then I'd suggest you make an effort to learn more about the targets of your hostility. The LDS church encourages the members to question and learn. We have no use for lemmings here.


Religion hurts me by propagating anti-rationality, backwards thinking, discrimination against my sexuality and propagandistic efforts against science as a whole.

NOW I see what your motivation is.

No, because they believe they are "restoring" a lost version of the church. The fact that they're made up retcons doesn't really enter their minds, sadly.

What a chore it must be for someone as enlightened as you to have to deal with so many peons.

Then I'd suggest you make an effort to learn more about the targets of your hostility. The LDS church encourages the members to question and learn. We have no use for lemmings here.



NOW I see what your motivation is.

It's hardly my primary motivation, but I won't deny that railing against the discrimination of religion is one. I do not define myself by my sexuality.

I know a great deal about Mormonism, and religion. I have qualifications in Christian, Islamic and Hindu theology, and I've read about Mormonism from both pro and anti-Mormon sources.

Mormonism archaeology is quite simply wrong. There is no two ways about it, no respectable archaeologist will disagree with me.

What a chore it must be for someone as enlightened as you to have to deal with so many peons.

It often is.

I'm not a linguistics expert, but there actually are such traces.

no, there are not. not in the slightest. at all. even remotely.

I would point out, however, that Lehi's people not only mixed with existing residents but those tribes most directly descended from his people were anhilated in wars.

not according to years of statements from your prophets, particularly smith himself.

There is archaeological evidence to indicate that those assertions aren't so sure. Remains of not only horses but of elephants have been discovered that predate this period of history.

horses and mastadons went extinct in the americas approximately 10,000 years ago. there were then none - absolutely and decisively zero - until after columbus.

I'm not too impressed with the methodology used to make that determination. As I recall, the reasearch in question was done by a group that was actively working to debunk the Book of Mormon's assertions and so their objectivity is uncertain.

no, almost nobody cares about mormonism's claims except when directly confronted with ridiculous ones. genetics research is and has been carried out by a diverse selection of scientists interested in piecing together our past. there have been dozens, if not hundreds, of studies on the genetic links between various peoples, not just one.

Dum Dum Dum Dum Dum!

no, there are not. not in the slightest. at all. even remotely.


Well if you say so... it must be true.


not according to years of statements from your prophets, particularly smith himself.

Then you're misreading something.



horses and mastadons went extinct in the americas approximately 10,000 years ago. there were then none - absolutely and decisively zero - until after columbus.


Then explain why they were found inside structures that date back to Incan civilization.


no, almost nobody cares about mormonism's claims except when directly confronted with ridiculous ones. genetics research is and has been carried out by a diverse selection of scientists interested in piecing together our past. there have been dozens, if not hundreds, of studies on the genetic links between various peoples, not just one.

Except when someone like yourself has a chip on his shoulder, perhaps?

And there haven't been dozens or hundreds of studies on this issue.

It's hardly my primary motivation, but I won't deny that railing against the discrimination of religion is one. I do not define myself by my sexuality.

I know a great deal about Mormonism, and religion. I have qualifications in Christian, Islamic and Hindu theology, and I've read about Mormonism from both pro and anti-Mormon sources.

Mormonism archaeology is quite simply wrong. There is no two ways about it, no respectable archaeologist will disagree with me.

It often is.

No I think that IS your primary motivation. You're mad because a group that you don't even care about would bar you from membership, and so now you want to hit back. Don't insult our intelligence with that nonsense about wanting to make a better world by squishing people who have beliefs you don't share.

Neo Bretonnia is a bigot. Dum dum dum dum dum. He justifies it using religeon. Dum dum dum dum dum. He gets upset when people question his faith. Dum dum dum dum dum. Perhaps because he is insecure? Dum dum dum dum dum!

Neo Bretonnia is a bigot. Dum dum dum dum dum. He justifies it using religeon. Dum dum dum dum dum. He gets upset when people question his faith. Dum dum dum dum dum. Perhaps because he is insecure? Dum dum dum dum dum!

i'm just.. overwhelmed by your analysis. It's so... clever.

No I think that IS your primary motivation. You're mad because a group that you don't even care about would bar you from membership, and so now you want to hit back. Don't insult our intelligence with that nonsense about wanting to make a better world by squishing people who have beliefs you don't share.

Uh, no. My primary motivation is that I see religion as a massive opposition to the advancement of humanity via science. My sexuality only comes into it when they directly attack me.

I'm mad because your cult of the week would bar my entry? How ridiculously presumscious of you. As if I'd degrade myself.

No I think that IS your primary motivation. You're mad because a group that you don't even care about would bar you from membership, and so now you want to hit back. Don't insult our intelligence with that nonsense about wanting to make a better world by squishing people who have beliefs you don't share.


Yes he doesnt share your veiw that gays should be discriminated against because of their orientation.



Dum dum dum dum dum!

Yes he doesnt share your veiw that gays should be discriminated against because of their orientation.



Dum dum dum dum dum!

Yes, that's my view exactly. :rolleyes:

No I think that IS your primary motivation. You're mad because a group that you don't even care about would bar you from membership, and so now you want to hit back. Don't insult our intelligence with that nonsense about wanting to make a better world by squishing people who have beliefs you don't share.

i'm just.. overwhelmed by your analysis. It's so... clever.


Isnt it just. :cool:



Dum dum dum dum dum!

Yes, that's my view exactly. :rolleyes:

So, you agree?





Dum dum dum dum dum!

The best way to deal with Mormons is to round them all up in some sort of camp, strve them, work them to the point of exhaustion and then gas them with a bit of zyclon b, dispersed through communal 'showers'. Then strip them of anything valuable and burn the bodies.

A land war in Russia might be a bad idea though.

@Mindset:Get over yourself, you aren't helping anyone realize the truth so why bother.

according to who? the "definition" of a christian I grew up with was believing jesus was the messiah, and did for your sins.

which the mormons seem to believe.
I think our definitions differ.

For one thing, Mormons believe in a different Jesus than Christians believe in. Namely, they think that Jesus was the brother of Lucifer. Whereas Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the son and physical aspect of God, and while we're at it...
2 Cor. 11:3-4 "But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough." (From NIV Bible).

A Jesus who is a brother to Lucifer is ONLY in the Book of Mormon, and not in the Holy Bible. Therefore, this is a different Jesus from the one in the Holy Bible, and is exactly the type of Jesus Paul warns us about.

yeah sorry about that got kinda caught up there for a minute...




I'm not a linguistics expert, but there actually are such traces. The book I mentioned earlier has a little about that contained therin, but I'm not well versed enough to go into much detail. I would point out, however, that Lehi's people not only mixed with existing residents but those tribes most directly descended from his people were anhilated in wars.



There is archaeological evidence to indicate that those assertions aren't so sure. Remains of not only horses but of elephants have been discovered that predate this period of history. Obviously, we're not talking the same species as what would have been found in Asia and Africa at the time, but elephants there were. I don't know much of the details, but if I find the article I'll TG you on it if you're interested.

I'm not a metalworker but I do know that steel = iron with greater levels of refinement and carbon forging. I know that answer isn't very satisfying but I'm happy to do some research on this for you.

Edit:There wasn't Oriental silk.

I'm not too impressed with the methodology used to make that determination. As I recall, the reasearch in question was done by a group that was actively working to debunk the Book of Mormon's assertions and so their objectivity is uncertain.
Do you have links to a reputable source online maybe? I think we need to stick to generic history/archeology sites and stay away from "ohheylookmormonismiscrap" or a "ohheylookmormismmustbetrue" sites. Agendas on either side = fail. What kind of silk are you talking about?


One thing to keep in mind is that when Joseph Smith began his work in the 1800s, he wasn't starting up a brand new Church. It is our assertion that he RESTORED the original Church as it was during the time of Christ. This, by the way, is why the organizational structure between the LDS church and the Roman Catholic Church are so similar. One traces back to the classical period, the other is a restoration of it. Therefore, those very same verses would be read as refering to the LDS teachings as the true gospel, and the others as different.

And to an Orthodox Christian that's kind of hard to wrap one's head around. If you go back to Matthew, you have Jesus telling him to carry on the church in His absence. If you trace the papal succession, it is an unbroken chain back to Peter. One of the questions in my mind is; where did the Orthodox Church go astray?

I think our definitions differ.

For one thing, Mormons believe in a different Jesus than Christians believe in. Namely, they think that Jesus was the brother of Lucifer. Whereas Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the son and physical aspect of God, and while we're at it...
2 Cor. 11:3-4 "But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough." (From NIV Bible).

A Jesus who is a brother to Lucifer is ONLY in the Book of Mormon, and not in the Holy Bible. Therefore, this is a different Jesus from the one in the Holy Bible, and is exactly the type of Jesus Paul warns us about.

First of all, that piece of info isn't in the Book of Mormon, so whatever source your'e parroting needs some work.

Second, when we say they're brothers it because God created Satan, He created Jesus, He created you, He created me. That makes us all siblings.

Or are you suggesting there's something/someone that God did NOT create?

To repeat:

There was one, and only one Jesus the Christ, Son of the Living God who died on the cross for the sins of humanity. One either follows Him and takes upon oneself His name, or they do not.

It's not for you to decide whether I am a Christian. That's between me and my Father in Heaven. You don't get to make that call.

No. People need to be challenged. Religion encourages the opposite: accept the dogma, no questions asked, or go to hell/be reincarnated as a slug/whatever. I am forcing people to think, simply by bringing up the topic.

Religion hurts me by propagating anti-rationality, backwards thinking, discrimination against my sexuality and propagandistic efforts against science as a whole.

So because some people within a religion are assholes, you feel justified in attacking them? Attack the assholes, don't attack everyone. By and large they leave you alone, why don't you give them the same courtesy. Get over your persecution complex, it makes your bigotry show.

So because some people within a religion are assholes, you feel justified in attacking them? Attack the assholes, don't attack everyone. By and large they leave you alone, why don't you give them the same courtesy. Get over your persecution complex, it makes your bigotry show.

be fair though, NB was just parrotting and apparantly accepting the opinions of the assholes as "that's just the way it is".

I don't mean to get testy. It's just that I was kinda disappointed that it was Smunk carrying the Mormons =/= Christians torch.

I am a fundamentalist Christian what the hell else did you expect from me?

fundamentalists recognize 6 fundamentals of Christianity

# Inerrancy of the Scriptures
# The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
# The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God's grace and human faith
# The bodily resurrection of Jesus
# The authenticity of Christ's miracles

Mormons are missing a few of those.......quite a few actually.

Do you have links to a reputable source online maybe? I think we need to stick to generic history/archeology sites and stay away from "ohheylookmormonismiscrap" or a "ohheylookmormismmustbetrue" sites. Agendas on either side = fail. What kind of silk are you talking about?


The problem with the archaeology is that there's still relatively little done, at least compared to places like the Holy Land. Any source that's not related to religion isn't going to be looking specifically for the sort of things we'd need for this discussion, so all one can really do is look at the not-so-objective sources and weigh their findings on the merits of the individual discoveries. That's one of the things I liked about that book, while it was written by a Mormon, he did make an effort to independently verify his findings and research.

I'll get back to you on the silk. You're asking me to reach kinda far back in my memory ;)


And to an Orthodox Christian that's kind of hard to wrap one's head around. If you go back to Matthew, you have Jesus telling him to carry on the church in His absence. If you trace the papal succession, it is an unbroken chain back to Peter. One of the questions in my mind is; where did the Orthodox Church go astray?

Well, it would be kinda hard to fully answer that without seeming to attack Catholicism, as you can imagine.

It's a concept we call "Apostasy," an idea where the structure of the organization remains, but the true spiritual authority is missing. Without getting into a criticism of the Roman Church, suffice it to say the idea is that over the centuries, the church gradually strayed further and further from the original message, and the original unbroken chain of priesthood authority eventually WAS broken, such that it needed to be restored directly.

There's a book called "The Great Apostasy" that goes into detail on a historical basis, that details changes introduced by other movements like the gnostics, changes introduced by the Roman Empire, questionable lines of Papal wuthority through the Middle Ages, etc.

I don't mean to get testy. It's just that I was kinda disappointed that it was Smunk carrying the Mormons =/= Christians torch.

Just keep in mind, it's not personal. It's not an uncommon perspective either. Just keep an open mind and have a dialouge.

I am a fundamentalist Christian what the hell else did you expect from me?

Oh, I dunno maybe the same level of civility and mutual respect you seem to be perfectly willing to show everybody else.


fundamentalists recognize 6 fundamentals of Christianity

1 Inerrancy of the Scriptures
2 The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
3 The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God's grace and human faith
4 The bodily resurrection of Jesus
5 The authenticity of Christ's miracles

Mormons are missing a few of those.......quite a few actually.

I put numbers on your list for convenience of reference.

1) We believe Scripture to be inerrant as far as it's translated correctly. Yes, we do believe there are erros in Biblical translation. Not many, but there are some.
2)We agree on this.
3)We agree on this.
4)We agree on this.
5)We agree on this.

One item doesn't constitute "quite a few."

First of all, that piece of info isn't in the Book of Mormon, so whatever source your'e parroting needs some work.

Second, when we say they're brothers it because God created Satan, He created Jesus, He created you, He created me. That makes us all siblings.

Or are you suggesting there's something/someone that God did NOT create?

To repeat:

There was one, and only one Jesus the Christ, Son of the Living God who died on the cross for the sins of humanity. One either follows Him and takes upon oneself His name, or they do not.

It's not for you to decide whether I am a Christian. That's between me and my Father in Heaven. You don't get to make that call.
the fact that you believe Jesus was a created being at all, goes against most all Christianity.


Let's look at Mormonism

God is a created being, he used to be mortal but he was really good and so got his planet and made us. Jesus is a created being, born from a woman that had sex with God, and he is Satan's literal spirit brother. If you are really good you can have your own planet when you die, that you populate with your own spirit children that are born after you and your wife have spirit sex.

yeah, that's totally Christianity.

be fair though, NB was just parrotting and apparantly accepting the opinions of the assholes as "that's just the way it is".

That's a rather distorted rendering of my meaning. I think you misunderstand me.

the fact that you believe Jesus was a created being at all, goes against most all Christianity.


Let's look at Mormonism

God is a created being, he used to be mortal but he was really good and so got his planet and made us. Jesus is a created being, born from a woman that had sex with God, and he is Satan's literal spirit brother. If you are really good you can have your own planet when you die, that you populate with your own spirit children that are born after you and your wife have spirit sex.

yeah, that's totally Christianity.

You, or your sources have been watching "The Godmakers," a piece of floatsam that was made from a book in which the author himself acknowledged he included falsehoods with the goal of diverting people from the church.

How can I tell? The part about having sex with God. Mormon teaching says no such thing but it's a favorite among fans of that piece of work. And people eat that right up because it's so scandalous.

For the record: We don't believe that.

Just keep in mind, it's not personal. It's not an uncommon perspective either. Just keep an open mind and have a dialouge.

Keep watching.

Oh, I dunno maybe the same level of civility and mutual respect you seem to be perfectly willing to show everybody else.



I put numbers on your list for convenience of reference.

1) We believe Scripture to be inerrant as far as it's translated correctly. Yes, we do believe there are erros in Biblical translation. Not many, but there are some.
2)We agree on this.
3)We agree on this.
4)We agree on this.
5)We agree on this.

One item doesn't constitute "quite a few."

1 so all the times the Bible says it's full and complete even in multiple different translations are what? mistranslated over and over again, every single time?

2 "The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood - was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8: p. 115)

"Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers" (Mormon Doctrine," by Bruce McConkie, p. 547)
doesn't sound like a virgin birth to me.......unless we are all born of virgins

3 "The first effect [of the atonement] is to secure to all mankind alike, exemption from the penalty of the fall, thus providing a plan of General Salvation. The second effect is to open a way for Individual Salvation whereby mankind may secure remission of personal sins (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 78-79.

hmm......nope, not the same.

4 I'll give you this one.

5 I'll give you this one as well.

still looks like you are missing more than one.

be fair though, NB was just parrotting and apparantly accepting the opinions of the assholes as "that's just the way it is".

That still doesn't justify Mindset's bigotry.

1 so all the times the Bible says it's full and complete even in multiple different translations are what? mistranslated over and over again, every single time?

Where does it say such a thing?


2 "The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood - was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8: p. 115)

Ok let's talk about the Journal of Discourses. Every Anti-Mormon's favorite work.

The Journal of Discourses was not an official Church publication, nor was it ever considered Sciptural or doctrinal. It contained the ideas of the editor and as I recall was published in England, not SLC. It's no more a source of definitive LDS doctrine than Time Magazine.

It also hasn't been published since the 1800s. Doesn't that tell you something?



"Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers" (Mormon Doctrine," by Bruce McConkie, p. 547)
doesn't sound like a virgin birth to me.......unless we are all born of virgins


Now I can see why you'd think this quote supports the first one, but given that the first one is trash, look at this one on it's own. McConkie is talking about the fact that Jesus was born of a woman, like us, and has a literal father, like us. (Only in His case, it's God)

He's NOT saying that there was sex involved. I have a copy of that book. I've read that passage in context. Do you have a copy?


3 "The first effect [of the atonement] is to secure to all mankind alike, exemption from the penalty of the fall, thus providing a plan of General Salvation. The second effect is to open a way for Individual Salvation whereby mankind may secure remission of personal sins (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 78-79.

hmm......nope, not the same.


Sounds the same to me.

You, or your sources have been watching "The Godmakers," a piece of floatsam that was made from a book in which the author himself acknowledged he included falsehoods with the goal of diverting people from the church.

How can I tell? The part about having sex with God. Mormon teaching says no such thing but it's a favorite among fans of that piece of work. And people eat that right up because it's so scandalous.

For the record: We don't believe that.

*looks for her copy of the Mormon Doctrines and Practice where it specifically says that Jesus was conceived the same freaking was as the rest of us, although knows from prior Mormon experiences that you will say that your doctrinal statement isn't Mormon doctrine*

That's a rather distorted rendering of my meaning. I think you misunderstand me.

do you disagree then that homosexuals ought to be denied membership of your religion?

That still doesn't justify Mindset's bigotry.

that was a long long way from bigotry in any definition of the term.

That still doesn't justify Mindset's bigotry.

I wasn't aware shooting gaping holes in a laughable cult's invisible man in the sky story counted as bigotry.

*looks for her copy of the Mormon Doctrines and Practice where it specifically says that Jesus was conceived the same freaking was as the rest of us, although knows from prior Mormon experiences that you will say that your doctrinal statement isn't Mormon doctrine*

So you think, what, I'm lying? Why would I need to do such a thing? In this thread I've taken abuse from all sorts of people who dislike various aspects of my belief. I've answered honestly even when I knew what would happen. Why would I lie about this item?

Oh Smunk, you talk so much bollock it is unbeleivable. Are you still fat? I remember seeing your picture a while ago. Given up the twinkies or to make babies does your husband have to sprinkle you with talcum powder and aim for the wet spot?

yep, I am still a fatass bitch. You got a problem with it or does it make you feel better about yourself to be an asshole? I mean I won't deny you that, God only knows what the hell else you have going for you.

So you think, what, I'm lying? Why would I need to do such a thing? In this thread I've taken abuse from all sorts of people who dislike various aspects of my belief. I've answered honestly even when I knew what would happen. Why would I lie about this item?

I'll leave you alone, you should answer Snafturi though, she won't be so.....argumentative.

The problem with the archaeology is that there's still relatively little done, at least compared to places like the Holy Land. Any source that's not related to religion isn't going to be looking specifically for the sort of things we'd need for this discussion, so all one can really do is look at the not-so-objective sources and weigh their findings on the merits of the individual discoveries. That's one of the things I liked about that book, while it was written by a Mormon, he did make an effort to independently verify his findings and research.

I'll get back to you on the silk. You're asking me to reach kinda far back in my memory ;)
I dunno. I think it's only reasonable to look at the objective material we have no matter how little there is of it. I am really particular (on all sides) about what kind of information I take as fact. I don't hink a lack of it makes it invalid.


Well, it would be kinda hard to fully answer that without seeming to attack Catholicism, as you can imagine.
Well, like I said, I see a difference between challeging and attacking. Yes there are differences. Yes we are going to disagree. This is where debate becomes interesting.

It's a concept we call "Apostasy," an idea where the structure of the organization remains, but the true spiritual authority is missing. Without getting into a criticism of the Roman Church, suffice it to say the idea is that over the centuries, the church gradually strayed further and further from the original message, and the original unbroken chain of priesthood authority eventually WAS broken, such that it needed to be restored directly.
Where do you see that happening and how? And feel free to really get into the meat of things. You aren't going to offend me as long as you challenge the Catholic church and not my personal belief system.

There's a book called "The Great Apostasy" that goes into detail on a historical basis, that details changes introduced by other movements like the gnostics, changes introduced by the Roman Empire, questionable lines of Papal wuthority through the Middle Ages, etc.
Some popes have hit pretty far off the mark. Almost all Catholics agree with you there. What Catholics disagree with is whether that means it's okay to chuck the whole idea.

yep, I am still a fatass bitch. You got a problem with it or does it make you feel better about yourself to be an asshole? I mean I won't deny you that, God only knows what the hell else you have going for you.

Don't dignify him by answering.

Don't dignify him by answering.

meh.

that was a long long way from bigotry in any definition of the term.

Yes, admittedly attacking people's spiratual because you don't agree with spiratuality isn't bigotry at all. It's the pinacle of tolerance.

I dunno. I think it's only reasonable to look at the objective material we have no matter how little there is of it. I am really particular (on all sides) about what kind of information I take as fact. I don't hink a lack of it makes it invalid.


Oh I don't mean to suggest that it should be ignored. I'm only saying we'd probably be forced to make use of less than objective sources because if it's relatively small volume.


Well, like I said, I see a difference between challeging and attacking. Yes there are differences. Yes we are going to disagree. This is where debate becomes interesting.

Where do you see that happening and how? And feel free to really get into the meat of things. You aren't going to offend me as long as you challenge the Catholic church and not my personal belief system.

Some popes have hit pretty far off the mark. Almost all Catholics agree with you there. What Catholics disagree with is whether that means it's okay to chuck the whole idea.

Most of the apostasy was a result of individual corruption on the part of people at various levels of authority, but the author I'm referring to is of the opinion that by about A.D. 800 the last vestiges of actual priesthood authority had melted away.

If you look in the New Testament, many of Paul's letters were to the various churches to clear up doctrinal errors that were creeping in. He was trying to clarify and basically put out fires of apostasy. As the church went underground during the Roman persecution, that kind of communication would have been exceedingly difficult.

I'd need to dig up the book to refer to names and dates, but there was one incident where a schizm occurred in which the Papal links were disrupted. As I recall, there was one Pope in Rome, a challenger in France, and one other from some splinter group all contending for the Throne of Peter. If you know about the incident I'm refering to maybe you'll remember the details better than I.


(I hate to keep having to put off details, but most of my book collection is in storage until we get our new place and move in.)

I wasn't aware shooting gaping holes in a laughable cult's invisible man in the sky story counted as bigotry.

If they aren't bothering you, why should you give half a fuck? Butt out of people's lives.

I'll leave you alone, you should answer Snafturi though, she won't be so.....argumentative.

Be argumentative if you like. I'm only pointing out the futility of continuing the discussion if you think I'm a liar.

If they aren't bothering you, why should you give half a fuck? Butt out of people's lives.

I think that the reason peopl ego out of their way to attack religion or those that believe in it is because it's how they express their angst. On some deep down level they *DO* believe but for whatever reason they're mad at God and this is their way of rebelling.

It's really kind of sad, in a way.

Be argumentative if you like. I'm only pointing out the futility of continuing the discussion if you think I'm a liar.

I don't think you are a liar, I think you are ignorant perhaps willfully so, about what your church believes.

I can site sources all day long about what the Mormon church believes, and yet you site no sources to refute them.

I don't think you are a liar, I think you are ignorant perhaps willfully so, about what your church believes.

I can site sources all day long about what the Mormon church believes, and yet you site no sources to refute them.

What kind of sources would you like? I can use McConkie's book. I can use Scripture, even Sripture that we'd agree on (Like the KJV). I'd have thought my honest word would be sufficient but I'll provide sources if you wish.

Let's be clear: I'm not being "willfully ignorant." I knew about the LDS church before I converted. I had no reason to need to deceive myself.

My question for you would be, why do you trust your information more than mine? As a member of the church I am in a better position to know what my belief system is than you are, wouldn't you agree?

I remember a thread a few months ago where you became aggravated with Szanth because he seemed to be telling you what you believe, despite your protests. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Edit: Going to A fundmentalist author for information about Mormon belief is like going to a Chevy dealership and expecting an honest opinion about the virtues of a Toyota Tundra.

If they aren't bothering you, why should you give half a fuck? Butt out of people's lives.

The fallacy of religion has caused incalculable damage to our world, our science and our lives. Science is warped to fit religious ends, great minds oppressed by religious authority, wars waged, innumerable lives lost in the name of various gods. Don't tell me they're not bothering me. Look at the world today, look at the world since the first primitive man first came up with his imaginary friend. Religion is a blight upon the world.

What kind of sources would you like? I can use McConkie's book. I can use Scripture, even Sripture that we'd agree on (Like the KJV). I'd have thought my honest word would be sufficient but I'll provide sources if you wish.

Let's be clear: I'm not being "willfully ignorant." I knew about the LDS church before I converted. I had no reason to need to deceive myself.

My question for you would be, why do you trust your information more than mine? As a member of the church I am in a better position to know what my belief system is than you are, wouldn't you agree?

I remember a thread a few months ago where you became aggravated with Szanth because he seemed to be telling you what you believe, despite your protests. Do you see what I'm getting at?

I totally agree with you.

however, how do you reconcile the Mormon belief that God is a created being with the Christian belief that God is the alpha and omega the beginning and the end?

How can you worship a created God?

Keep watching.

Hey now. Heated debates don't forgive a lack of civility.

I think that the reason peopl ego out of their way to attack religion or those that believe in it is because it's how they express their angst. On some deep down level they *DO* believe but for whatever reason they're mad at God and this is their way of rebelling.

It's really kind of sad, in a way.

Sorry, no. People are not atheists because they are mad at God. People are atheists because they do not believe that anything named "God" exists. I cannot be mad at something that I do not believe exists.

Despite how firmly you have convinced yourself of your god's existence, you cannot claim that atheists secretly believe in god, because they logically can't.

I cannot be angry at something that does not exist. I can be angry at blatant, unrepentant ignorance, such as you and many others like you display on a daily basis.

EDIT: I can be irritated at the idea of your god, in the same way that I am irritated that Harry Potter didn't die in the final book. I can't be mad at god directly, no more so than I can be mad at Harry Potter, since both are fictional characters.

I totally agree with you.

however, how do you reconcile the Mormon belief that God is a created being with the Christian belief that God is the alpha and omega the beginning and the end?

How can you worship a created God?

I don't reconcile them. That's a genuine difference.

But we do have a different understanding from yours in the meaning of alpha and omega. If Alpha is a beginning, and Omega is an end, that suggests a finite span of time and it references the world/creation. It began when God created it, it will end at the Second Coming. (Both events are carried out primarily by Jesus Christ)

Hey now. Heated debates don't forgive a lack of civility.

Granted.

AHEM

anyone who accepts the divinity of christ and follows his teachings is a christian.

you might take issue with the details of their theology but you cannot deny their christianity.

Um, you don't have to believe in the divinity of Christ to be a Christian. Most Christians do, but it's not a requirement.

The best way to deal with Mormons is to round them all up in some sort of camp, strve them, work them to the point of exhaustion and then gas them with a bit of zyclon b, dispersed through communal 'showers'. Then strip them of anything valuable and burn the bodies.

Are you really this much of an asshole, or do you just play one on the internet?

The fallacy of religion has caused incalculable damage to our world, our science and our lives. Science is warped to fit religious ends, great minds oppressed by religious authority, wars waged, innumerable lives lost in the name of various gods. Don't tell me they're not bothering me. Look at the world today, look at the world since the first primitive man first came up with his imaginary friend. Religion is a blight upon the world.

Riight. Buddhists have made the world a horrible place. I have yet to hear about widespread buddhist terrorisim. Or Wiccan terrorists. It's not religion, it's people. If they didn't have the justification of God to kill, they'd come up with something else.

Sorry, no. People are not atheists because they are mad at God. People are atheists because they do not believe that anything named "God" exists. I cannot be mad at something that I do not believe exists.


I dnid't say people or atheists in general. I said people like you who go out of your way to lash out at religion at every possible opportunity.


Despite how firmly you have convinced yourself of your god's existence, you cannot claim that atheists secretly believe in god, because they logically can't.

I cannot be angry at something that does not exist. I can be angry at blatant, unrepentant ignorance, such as you and many others like you display on a daily basis.

EDIT: I can be irritated at the idea of your god, in the same way that I am irritated that Harry Potter didn't die in the final book. I can't be mad at god directly, no more so than I can be mad at Harry Potter, since both are fictional characters.

Don't kid yourself. You're not impressive with your anger, and I don't care if you're mad at me or religion or God or Captain Crunch.

See, I'm not mad at you. I'm not mad at you because I kinda feel sorry for you because you can't see past your own anger. In an hour I'll still be perfectly calm, as I am now. How many times have you gotten your heartrate up over something that doesn't have anything to do with you?

And yet you look down on me. ironic, since my belief system, the one you hate so much because it doesn't cater to you, teaches me NOT to look down on you or anybody else. I may think you're a jerk, but you are my brother nevertheless, and that makes us equal in value in the eyes of God. We're all sinners. The difference is that I admit my sins and I do my best to live by His will. You choose not to. That is your choice. It doesn't make me more valuable than you, and I know that. In fact, I'm glad that's how it is, because it means that even during the times in my life when I've been pretty far from His path (and you'd be amazed just how far. Believe me. You and I have more in common than you think.) I still had value.

And so do you.

Um, you don't have to believe in the divinity of Christ to be a Christian. Most Christians do, but it's not a requirement.

I'd say you kinda do... but then I'm not going to presume to judge.

Well guys it's been a blast but if I don't leave now to pick up my wife at the Metro station my arse will be in a sling.

I appreciate those of you who have been civil and I look forward to continuing this thread.

To those who aren't... Try a bowl of Captain Crunch. It always makes me feel better. :)

Riight. Buddhists have made the world a horrible place. I have yet to hear about widespread buddhist terrorisim. Or Wiccan terrorists. It's not religion, it's people. If they didn't have the justification of God to kill, they'd come up with something else.

Buddhists don't believe in god, and I'm fair sure the Wiccans don't either. It's the invisible man in the sky thing, people start to believe in their own god and start to take people who hear voices seriously. People who hear voices are mentally unstable folks, when you start to treat them as prophets you're begging to set up a fucked up organization.

*deep sigh* Mormonism is a religion steeped in ignorance. From the most recent posts, I see that the majority of the individuals writing it (who are not Mormons) don't know the first thing about the religion. And those who are Mormon conveniently keep away from any real detail about The religion's conception which is, I dare say, a load of crap. That puts it as blunt as I can. I am not a Mormon myself, but I do know Mormons themselves as very nice people, I have nothing against them. However, after taking a strictly unbiased approach to research on the internet, books I've read, and people I know accociated to the religion, I can honestly say that Mormonism is destructive not in it's policies and beliefs, but in the blatant ignorance that it endorses...No doubt I will be called a "basher" and a "fascist" for this, but it is only an opinion. If you want to learn about thre religion itself and form your own opinions, that is fine, but do it the right way using logic and an open mind. (Oh, and "open mind" is not a synonym for "believe everything someone tells you as fact")

Um, you don't have to believe in the divinity of Christ to be a Christian. Most Christians do, but it's not a requirement.
:confused: I mean, if you are a Christian you are a follower of Christ. Since Christ said several times he was the Son of God, doesnt that mean you'd have to believe him and therefore believe in this divinity?

:confused:

Not all Christians think Christ is God, right?

Buddhists don't believe in god, and I'm fair sure the Wiccans don't either. It's the invisible man in the sky thing, people start to believe in their own god and start to take people who hear voices seriously. People who hear voices are mentally unstable folks, when you start to treat them as prophets you're begging to set up a fucked up organization.

Wiccans believe in multiple gods. And none of them have killed, hurt, or intimidated another human being on behalf of said gods. As long as no one is getting hurt (and again, I don't consider 'believing in something that is wrong' to be hurting someone), how the fucking hell is who other people worship your business, anyway? Harming others is your gods name is one thing, but most people respect your right to not believe in a god, why is it so difficult for you to do the same?

I'd say you kinda do... but then I'm not going to presume to judge.

Thanks. Allow me. ;)

:confused:

What, not familiar with Low Christology?

Wiccans believe in multiple gods. And nopne of them have killed, hurt, or intimidates another human being on behalf of said gods. As long as no one is getting hurt (and again, I don't consider 'believing in something that is wrong' to be hurting someone), how the fucking hell is who other people worship your business, anyway? Harming others is your gods name is one thing, but most people respect your right to not believe in a god, why is it so difficult for you to do the same?

Because they don't. Also have I ever said anything about Wiccans? No, that's your little rant. I'm mostly interested in the damage the big three do, and have done. The dark ages alone may have killed our entire species. We'd be centuries ahead of where we are in technology if not for them.

Not all Christians think Christ is God, right?

Jesus is the son of God. I thought all Christians believed that. Except for the non-trinitarians.

Because they don't. Also have I ever said anything about Wiccans? No, that's your little rant. I'm mostly interested in the damage the big three do, and have done. The dark ages alone may have killed our entire species. We'd be centuries ahead of where we are in technology if not for them.

You're blaming religion for the world's woes. Religion in general, not just the Big Three that you mention here. Yes, great harm has been done in the name of god. But great good has been, too, it's just that the harm gets more play.

You said that religion is a blight on the world, that all religion kills and does other bad things. I responded stating the it's not religion that's the problem, it's people. Still haven't heard back from you on that, by the way.

Please, explain how everyone in the world gives a rats ass who you do or don't worship. I don't, and I don't attack you for it. Why do you have this knee-jerk hostility toward those who disagree with you?

:confused: I mean, if you are a Christian you are a follower of Christ. Since Christ said several times he was the Son of God, doesnt that mean you'd have to believe him and therefore believe in this divinity?

Christ called all people the children of God. He also referred to Himself as the Son of Man.

Out of all the Gospels, only John seems to require that Christ himself be divine. Early Christian sects were at odds over the issue. It was centuries before the bulk of the church agreed that Jesus Christ was divine and came to a general consensus on how (although the how is still very much in contention - and most people simply don't bother with the how). Some thought that Jesus was simply a great guy chosen by God to be the Messiah. Some thought that Jesus became divine upon his death. Some thought that Jesus essentially had two personalities - the divine and the human. Some thought that Jesus was God basically wearing a human skin. A few thought that Jesus was actually the real God, while the OT God was more of a demon figure who had been disobeying the real God.

One of the biggest lies the Catholic Church has told (and that even many Protestant churches believe) is that there was ever a single Christian religion.

What, not familiar with Low Christology?

Apparently not.

Um, you don't have to believe in the divinity of Christ to be a Christian. Most Christians do, but it's not a requirement.

what christian denomination did you have in mind?

Christ called all people the children of God. He also referred to Himself as the Son of Man.

Out of all the Gospels, only John seems to require that Christ himself be divine. Early Christian sects were at odds over the issue. It was centuries before the bulk of the church agreed that Jesus Christ was divine and came to a general consensus on how (although the how is still very much in contention - and most people simply don't bother with the how). Some thought that Jesus was simply a great guy chosen by God to be the Messiah. Some thought that Jesus became divine upon his death. Some thought that Jesus essentially had two personalities - the divine and the human. Some thought that Jesus was God basically wearing a human skin. A few thought that Jesus was actually the real God, while the OT God was more of a demon figure who had been disobeying the real God.

One of the biggest lies the Catholic Church has told (and that even many Protestant churches believe) is that there was ever a single Christian religion.

So the voice from heaven in Matthew was what then?

I don't think you are a liar, I think you are ignorant perhaps willfully so, about what your church believes.

I can site sources all day long about what the Mormon church believes, and yet you site no sources to refute them.

Would you like me to start citing sources about what Fundamentalist Christians believe (using mind you only the Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps variety)? This attack on Mormonisim is not only unbecoming of you it is entirely out of character from the laid back, nice, gentle, fun to have around Smunkee we're used to. Is everything ok?

So the voice from heaven in Matthew was what then?

God doesn't say, "This is my Son and he is God," in that passage, right?

Being seen as the Son of God (a title, IIRC, also given to David in the OT) does not automatically mean that one is divine.

Buddhists don't believe in god, and I'm fair sure the Wiccans don't either. It's the invisible man in the sky thing, people start to believe in their own god and start to take people who hear voices seriously. People who hear voices are mentally unstable folks, when you start to treat them as prophets you're begging to set up a fucked up organization.

buddhism doesnt have an official god. the vast majority of individual buddhists worship one or more gods.

Would you like me to start citing sources about what Fundamentalist Christians believe (using mind you only the Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps variety)? This attack on Mormonisim is not only unbecoming of you it is entirely out of character from the laid back, nice, gentle, fun to have around Smunkee we're used to. Is everything ok?

not particularly (to all questions)

Buddhists don't believe in god, and I'm fair sure the Wiccans don't either.

Most Wiccans believe in a minimum of two. Are you sure your problem is with belief in deities in general and not with belief in the god that is variously referred to as God/Jehova/Yawhey/Allah and several other names?

Most Wiccans believe in a minimum of two. Are you sure your problem is with belief in deities in general and not with belief in the god that is variously referred to as God/Jehova/Yawhey/Allah and several other names?

nah. The quakers believe in that one and they are pretty non-mean mostly, pacifists even.

I think it's a jerky people believe they have the right to be jerky thing.

Apparently not.

http://cat.xula.edu/mark/low.htm

what christian denomination did you have in mind?

No current denominations, but certainly some ancient sects.

God doesn't say, "This is my Son and he is God," in that passage, right?

Being seen as the Son of God (a title, IIRC, also given to David in the OT) does not automatically mean that one is divine.

Trinitarians don't think Jesus is God.